# commentaries

text:
<p>The Beloved </p><p>Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for your lovemaking<strong>- </strong></p><p>That the woman should take the initiative in opening the story with a request to be kissed and talking about sex::. would have been shocking in contemporary society. The Hebrew dodim specifically refers to sexual love. <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a> is specific that they slept with each other. And she continues to be incredibly "forward" throughout the Songs, asking Solomon to sleep with her (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>; <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). She proudly reflects: "I awakened you" (<a href='B:260 8:5'>Son 8:5</a>). This taking of the sexual initiative by the woman was an absolute deconstruction of the genre of romance songs. And she is presented as exactly the fulfilment of the loud and forward Gentile woman whom Solomon had warned against in the Proverbs. But he fell in love with her and slept with her whilst a young man, whilst writing such sober warnings against this. The purpose of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon is to give us an insight into the psychology of the person who knows God's truth who falls into sin. These books are really an insight into depth psychology. And we who likewise know God's truth, who are also tempted to sin, find in them therefore a profound insight into our own likely psychologies and paths of temptation.</p><p>"Lovemaking" is s:w. <a href='B:240 7:18'>Pro 7:18</a>, where the bad Gentile woman invites the young Hebrew man to sleep with her undetected by others. Solomon is beyond hypocritical; he appears to think that he can teach one thing and do precisely the opposite. It is beyond narcissism, but rather a kind of playing God to the extent of considering he had no possibility of personal failure and could act as he wished.</p><p>Is better than wine- The&nbsp; criticism&nbsp; of Solomon for marrying foreign women also applies to&nbsp; his&nbsp; first&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; with&nbsp; the daughter of Pharaoh; besides marrying&nbsp; her,&nbsp; he&nbsp; married&nbsp; the&nbsp; others too, and the criticisms which&nbsp; follow&nbsp; are&nbsp; spoken in the context of both these actions. Yet Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter in his early days, before he asked for wisdom. This is another indication that Solomon did not&nbsp; start&nbsp; off well and then go wrong; right from the beginning he&nbsp; had this incredible dualism in his spirituality. The Talmud (Shabbath F, 56,2) records that “When Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh she brought to him 1000 kinds of musical instruments, and taught him the chants to the various idols”. Even when Solomon was young, he evidently loved wine (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>)- which was later to be something he (temporarily) abandonned himself to. He had a child by an Ammonite girl one year before he became king (<a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>)- so his relationships with foreign women cannot be put down to mere political alliances. If the Song of Solomon is about her rather than the Egyptian woman he married, one can only say that one early error, unrepented of, paved the way for his later disasters with foreign women. The Song suggests that he met the foreigner he married whilst walking alone in the countryside- which again proves it was a love relationship rather than a political alliance. The record later describes his building of store cities in the very language used of Pharaoh’s using Hebrew labour to build treasure cities (<a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a> cp. <a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a> Heb:). The influence of his father-in-law was deep, and lasted a long time. </p>


text:
<p>Your oils have a pleasing fragrance. Your name is oil poured forth<strong>- </strong></p><p>We are baptized into the Name of Jesus, and bear that Name in the eyes of men. The Hebrew concept of a name meant really a renown, an understanding of the person. The Bride comments that “your name is as ointment poured forth” (<a href='B:260 1:3'>Son 1:3</a> AV), likening the name to the smell of perfume. The “scent” of a nation is likewise their reputation, the message they give out (<a href='B:300 48:11'>Jer 48:11</a>; <a href='B:350 14:7'>Hos 14:7</a>). We are the savour of Christ (<a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a>), we bear His Name, and therefore anyone carrying the Name is thereby a witness to Him. </p><p>Therefore the virgins love you<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all her self confidence and forwardness, the girl knows she is up against strong competition from the daughters of Jerusalem. She is far from positive that she as one Gentile girl can overcome that factor. And she sees the only chance of her winning is to get Solomon right away from them, and back to Egypt (:4).</p>


text:
<p>Take me away with you. Let’s hurry. The king has brought me into his rooms!<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :4 that she considered getting Solomon away to Egypt was her only chance of countering the attraction of the daughters of Jerusalem. She imagines them leaving Jerusalem together in <a href='B:260 2:10'>Son 2:10</a>, and at the end of the story, still this is her desire (<a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). Nothing changed. She was as she was. And yet she fantasizes that thereby she would be Solomon's wife and therefore brought into his "chambers". But the word literally means a hiding place, and we note the desire to be taken away, to hurry as if they are under threat of discovery, rather than being on the way to a wedding. Most of their encounters which we will read of are in the open air, as their relationship is not approved of by others. And so it may be better to read "rooms" as "hiding place", somewhere in the countryside, to which they must "hurry". </p><p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>We will be glad and rejoice in you. We will praise your love more than wine!<strong>- </strong></p><p>The daughters of Jerusalem are immediately portrayed as not very spiritually minded either. They know all about wine, which they praised, but they praised Solomon's love for them more than that. This is tacit admission that he did "love" them as well as the Egyptian girl. As becomes apparent at the very end of the Song. "Glad and rejoice" is a phrase used multiple times in the Psalms for how we should primarily be glad and rejoice in Yahweh. But there is no spiritual aspect here in any of the characters. This is demonstrated by the inspired record using terms which are found elsewhere in scripture, and highlighting the lack of spiritual perception of them by the characters.</p><p>Beloved</p><p>They are right to love you<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all her forwardness and self confidence, she recognizes that she has major competition. </p>


text:
<p>I am dark, but lovely, you daughters of Jerusalem, like Kedar’s tents, like Solomon’s curtains<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is very confident of her own beauty, as in <a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>. As an Egyptian she was darker skinned than the Jerusalem girls, and dark skin also spoke of lower social class. But she insists that this is to be no barrier to her winning of Solomon uniquely for herself. She comes over as bold, self justifying to her competitors (the "daughters of Jerusalem") and ever on the initiative; she goes out looking for him (<a href='B:260 3:1-5'>Son 3:1-5</a>; <a href='B:260 5:6-7'>Son 5:6-7</a>), and propositions him for sex. She is the very fulfilment of Solomon's 'bad woman' of the Proverbs. "Kedar" means "black", and she likes to think that the famed curtains or tents of this Gentile place were as good as any Jerusalem made curtains (<a href='B:300 49:28-29'>Jer 49:28-29</a>). She never perceives the unique nature of Jerusalem, seeing it as being as good as any other Gentile city. Yet Solomon likes to call her the Shulamite, the Jerusalem girl- counting her as who he wanted to see her as. This is the value of this book; we have a unique insight, at the level of depth psychology, into the mentality and thought processes of those who wish to go against God's clearly stated will, because they perceive everything in the light of the narrative they wish to believe and act according to. This is the same essential process going on in the minds of all manner of sexual perverts who on another hand know God's truth so well:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p></p><p>Don’t stare at me because I am dark, because the sun has scorched me-</p><p>She is very self defensive. She says the sun has looked or stared at her, and so they shouldn't look at her askance because of her darker skin. This marked her as a Gentile, or a woman of lower social class. She comes over as anything but humble.</p><p>My mother’s sons were angry with me. They made me keeper of the vineyards, but I haven’t kept my own vineyard-</p><p>If her vineyard refers to her virginity or sexuality (as in :14; <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>), this would mean that her brothers were angry with her for sleeping with Solomon. Brothers were seen as guardians of their sister in sexual terms (Genesis 34; 2Samuel 13). The Song concludes, perhaps, with her brothers considering her too young for marriage, and wanting to set her up with a more appropriate husband than Solomon (<a href='B:260 8:8-9'>Son 8:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest them at noon; for why should I be as one who is veiled beside the flocks of your companions?<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Who is veiled" can as well be rendered "one who is lost", as LXX. She complains she is just tagging along with the flocks of women companions who were following Solomon as if he were their shepherd and they the sheep; they are the "daughters of Jerusalem". He responds that she should follow their tracks to him (:8), and she will find his special love and attention (:9):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>If you don’t know, most beautiful among women, follow the tracks of the sheep. Graze your young goats beside the shepherds’ tents<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :7 that Solomon was not a literal shepherd, but he is here responding to the metaphor she uses in :7. Although he is indeed like a shepherd leading a flock of women, the daughters of Jerusalem, he says that she should follow their tracks to him, and she will find his special love and attention (:9). He encourages her that he finds her the most beautiful amongst all those other women or sheep. She is to come near to his tent, and graze her goats there- perhaps some sexual reference. </p><p>"Beautiful woman" is the term used by Solomon in <a href='B:240 11:22'>Pro 11:22</a> "Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion". It is the term sarcastically used about her by Israelite competitors (<a href='B:260 5:9'>Son 5:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>). Seeing Solomon's wives were idolaters, they lacked discretion; and yet Solomon loved them and married them. He behaved with women completely opposite to his own teachings. And we have in the Song an invaluable exploration of the psychology and mental processes behind this feature of human nature. </p>


text:
<p>I have compared you, my love, to a steed in Pharaoh’s chariots<strong>- </strong></p><p>Heb. "I count you as::.". Again we have an insight into the psychology of a man in love. He sees her as::. whatever. He is in love with an image of his own creation, rather than her character. The&nbsp; Song of Solomon&nbsp;is the record of Solomon's romance with Pharaoh's&nbsp; daughter:&nbsp;Of&nbsp;course, this was an explicit breach of the&nbsp;crystal clear commandment not to marry women from Egypt. He should&nbsp; have&nbsp; admired&nbsp; neither the horses nor the women of Egypt;&nbsp;yet he begins his Song with an unashamed breach of the command&nbsp;not&nbsp;to&nbsp;desire&nbsp;either&nbsp; of&nbsp; these things:&nbsp;The unashamedness of Solomon coupled with his spirituality indicates that at&nbsp;this&nbsp;time he was genuinely convinced that what he was doing&nbsp;was&nbsp;deeply&nbsp;spiritual;&nbsp; when&nbsp; in&nbsp; fact it was completely carnal. He totally ignored his own advice about choosing a spiritual woman as a wife. And worse, he encourages her that although he is like a shepherd leading a flock of women, the daughters of Jerusalem, she is in fact his one special one. She is a beautiful mare, in his eyes, amongst all Pharaoh's chariot horses. He thus likens the daughters of Jerusalem to Pharaoh's chariot horses- which were destroyed at the Red Sea. But Solomon doesn't care about this obvious negative connection. See on <a href='B:260 2:2'>Son 2:2</a>, where he likens her to a lily amongst the thorns of the daughters of Jerusalem. See on <a href='B:260 2:12'>Son 2:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Your cheeks are beautiful with earrings, your neck with strings of jewels<strong>- </strong></p><p>She loves him because of his ointment, and he loves her because of her jewellery (<a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:260 1:10'>Son 1:10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He says that deep kissing with her gives the same after effect as drinking enough wine that you talk in your sleep afterwards (<a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). It’s all very human and carnal, based upon the external and not the internal. But this is what Solomon was like. He sees wisdom, even in Proverbs and certainly in Ecclesiastes, as only helpful in that it gives a person a good name and image in this life. </p>


text:
<p>We will make you earrings of gold, with studs of silver<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Song is shot through with allusion to the Law and&nbsp; tabernacle&nbsp; rituals; he speaks of making her borders [NEV "earrings"] on her clothes,&nbsp;probably alluding to the borders of blue to be worn&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; faithful&nbsp; Israelite:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; wanted her to look externally like a spiritual&nbsp; woman,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; going&nbsp; to&nbsp; make her one; many a preacher,&nbsp;&nbsp; teacher,&nbsp; husband,&nbsp; wife,&nbsp; father, mother,&nbsp; child,&nbsp; boyfriend has had to learn the impossibility of this:&nbsp; He wanted to see her as a spiritual woman, and eventually he became persuaded that she was just this. See on <a href='B:260 3:10'>Son 3:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p> While the king sat at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance<strong>- </strong></p><p>The girl is not a shepherd girl, she is a prince's daughter from Egypt (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), and so she has access to the Jerusalem palace and sees the king sitting at his table. She seems to be secretly boasting that after being intimate with each other, the smell of her perfume can be smelt exuding from him.</p>


text:
<p>My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh, that lies between my breasts<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "lies all night" implies they had slept together already at this early stage. Again we note that the entire genre of romance is subverted, consciously so. Sex and marriage are not the climax of the romance, but rather it all starts with inappropriate intimacy. </p>


text:
<p>My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi-</p><p>She again seems to associate vineyards with her breasts or sexuality (:13; see on :6). She seems to associate Solomon as a person with the aphrodisiacs she was using. In this we see her complete focus upon the external, seeing Solomon as a person as only as good as the aphrodisiacs. This collapsing of identity between the person and the external illustrates the degree to which the issue of character and spirituality is so sadly absent in the relationship.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon sees her as a dove (also <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>), and she then says that he has dove's eyes (<a href='B:260 5:12'>Son 5:12</a>). They tend to praise each other in the same language. Indeed this is an accurate record of a romance. But the praise is all of externalities, no attention is paid to the character, and there is absolutely no spiritual dimension to the relationship. This says so much about Solomon. This lack of attention to true spirituality means that his love of Divine wisdom at the time was purely of an intellectual, theoretical nature. And this is the warning for us. For he was writing this love song in his youth when he married foreign women, and it was then that he received Divine wisdom and wrote it up in the book of Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, yes, pleasant; and our couch is verdant<strong>- </strong></p><p>The "verdant" bed they would sleep on may be assumed to be of leaves, in the open air bower they would construct in :17. The Gentile woman invites Solomon, the young Hebrew male, to her bed in the same way as the woman he warns against in <a href='B:240 7:17'>Pro 7:17</a> "I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon". The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her bed. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>The beams of our house are cedars. Our rafters are firs- The house can be taken as a bower made of cedar and fir trees, the location of their tryst in the countryside. This continues the idea of :16. So whilst Solomon was still building the temple of cedars and firs, he was making a bower out of such trees in which to secretly sleep with his Egyptian, Gentile girlfriend. This is more that duplicitous hypocrisy, it is the behaviour of a man who has not at all personalized God's truths for himself. The path to this tryst has been hinted at in :7,8. That the king of Israel should need to act in this deceptive manner has much to say about him. He was worried about his image, and wished to give an appearance of interest in the daughters of Jerusalem. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Egyptian girl doesn't rate these common flowers; her lack of confidence in the face of the opposition from the daughters of Jerusalem is expressed again (see on <a href='B:260 1:3-4'>Son 1:3-4</a>), and comes to a climax at the end when she breaks up with Solomon, effectively saying "I knew it would end like this". And yet they are the flowers which are to adorn the restored Israel in the Kingdom of God (<a href='B:290 35:1-2'>Isa 35:1-2</a>; <a href='B:350 14:6-8'>Hos 14:6-8</a>). Her every word shows her to be spiritually out of step with God's ways and viewpoints. She now feels unworthy of him; just an ordinary common nothing special flower. This kind of oscillation of confidence is true to observed experience of the "in love" period of relationship. The Songs have every reason to believe them to be a record of an actual relationship Solomon had. </p><p>Chapter 1 has closed with the couple in Solomon's palace, but now she seems despondent and considers herself just a common lily. Her dislike of the city life was not because she was a country girl- she was a "prince's daughter", daughter of Pharaoh (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>). She didn't like it because the 'daughters of Jerusalem' were there, her competitors. It can be no accident that the Lord contrasts the lily favourably with Solomon in all his glory- as if He saw even this unspiritual Gentile girl as far better than Solomon. This is one of many NT allusions which present Solomon unfavourably.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>As a lily among thorns, so is my darling among the daughters<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon comforts her that he sees her as unique and special. This is what is hard to believe in love- that I am unique and special. And this is our difficulty in accepting the love of Christ for us. But Solomon negatively compares the daughters of Jerusalem to thorns, with all their associations with condemnation; just as he did in essence as noted on <a href='B:260 1:9'>Son 1:9</a>. Solomon addresses her obsession about "the daughters of Jerusalem" by saying that he sees them as thorns and her as a lily. He likens the Jerusalem girls to thorns- he was besotted with this Gentile. Ironically enough, <a href='B:40 33:55'>Num 33:55</a> had warned that the Gentiles within the land promised to Abraham would be "thorns" to Israel if they married them. And yet Solomon sees the Israelite women as "thorns" and the Gentile as a lily amongst them::. Thorns are invariably connected&nbsp; with spiritual weakness and rejection; it was&nbsp; as&nbsp; if&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; saying&nbsp; that he found the daughter of Pharaoh&nbsp; spiritually&nbsp; more attractive than the Jewish girls. This is the basis for the sarcastic comments and tensions between Solomon’s girl and the daughters of Jerusalem. And she&nbsp; went along with how he wanted to see her: "I am the rose of Sharon,&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; lily&nbsp; of&nbsp; the valleys"; even though her heart&nbsp; was&nbsp; far&nbsp; away&nbsp; in Egypt, she described herself in Jewish terms because that was how he saw her; he calls her his "sister" (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>), as if she was actually Jewish- whereas she wanted him to be her Egyptian “brother”. The relationship was doomed from the start. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, his fruit was sweet to my taste<strong>- </strong></p><p>She likens him to the apple tree, which is not a native of Palestine and may have been uncommon there at the time. She likes to see him as somehow not solidly Hebrew, just as he likes to see her as Israelite by comparing her to locations in Israel. They were both in love with a false image of the other which they had in their minds. This happens so often. The illicit nature of their relationship, the opposition they both had [she from her brothers, he from the daughters of Jerusalem] heightened the intensity of their passion and commitment- for a time. But there was no lasting cement in their relationship, because it was not based on spirit and truth.</p><p>It's hard to imagine what was actually going on in this part of the woman's speech. She speaks of meeting Solomon as a pleasant tree in the forest, then of being with Solomon publically at the banquet house, with a banner of his stated love over her, the ultimate answer to the daughters of Jerusalem whose competition she so feared; and then she is fantasizing about him arousing her with his right hand whilst having his left arm under her head, and then in :8 she hears the voice of Solomon indicating he is running across the mountains towards her. We surely cannot read all these things as descriptions of what actually happened in a short space of time; rather are they her fantasies, her imaginations of her idealized lover- see on :16. If we understand her words as largely the fantasy of imagination, then her whole speeches appear far less confused than if we try to read them as literal statements of what actually happened between the couple.</p>


text:
<p>He brought me to the banquet hall. His banner over me is love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Seeing their relationship was illicit, and they met outdoors, this appears to be the exaggerated imagery of the love poem. I suggested on <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a> that the "chambers" to which he brought her was an open air bivouac or bower made from tree branches where they made love and drunk wine. And again here she speaks of him bringing her::. to a banquet hall, in their imaginations, the open air bower, where they made love:&nbsp; </p><p>But "banquet hall" can indeed mean a "house of wine" (RVmg:). Solomon later turned to alcohol for a while (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>)- yet his girlfriend says that Solomon took her to the house of wine whilst still young. The seeds of failure were there early on- he preached against wine in Proverbs, and yet still drunk himself. </p>


text:
<p>Strengthen me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>She may be saying that she is so in heat for him, that he must give her his apples / raisins. Clearly this is sexual imagery, and the songs are little short of verbal pornography. The desire for such illicit fruit (for they were not married) in an open air situation recalls the sin of Adam and Eve. Again we have the sense of an open air tryst. "Refresh me" can also be "make my bed" (s:w. <a href='B:220 17:13'>Job 17:13</a> "made my bed"). In this case she is spreading an alluring couch before her would be lover, just as the wicked Gentile woman of <a href='B:240 7:16'>Pro 7:16</a>. And Solomon falls for her, assuming all his truths of wisdom are somehow not binding upon him personally:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The Song&nbsp;of Solomon really isn’t the idyllic love song some have made it out to be. Constantly there is fear and contradiction within it; the unsatisfactory ending is but a continuation of a theme of uncertainty and difficulty in the relationship. Throughout the song there are constant interjections of doubt and misunderstanding, and anticlimaxes between the height of love’s expression and the depths of doubt. We expect the Song to feature a romance that blossoms into marriage and the consummation; but all we have is a constant struggle in the relationship, and it all ends in a quite unsatisfactory and unfulfilled way. The sense of lovesickness reflects the unsatisfying nature of it all (<a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15-16'>Son 2:15-16</a>). She asks him to turn and go away, and then seeks him desperately (<a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>; <a href='B:260 3:1'>Son 3:1</a>)- having earlier rejoiced at the news of his coming (<a href='B:260 2:8'>Son 2:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>His left hand is under my head. His right hand embraces me<strong>- </strong></p><p>In fantasy or reality, they were having sex. And the Lord teaches that in this area, the thought is anyway counted as the act.</p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, or by the hinds of the field, that you not stir up, nor stimulate love, until it so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>An oath was typically taken in the name of God in Israel (<a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a>; <a href='B:60 9:18'>Jos 9:18</a>; <a href='B:140 15:14'>2Ch 15:14</a>). But again, this woman is portrayed as lacking any spirituality or relationship with God:&nbsp; Her sarcasm turns to angry defence when she warns the Jerusalem girls not to stir up “my love”- i:e. ‘Hands off my Solomon!’. In turn, they ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They in their turn sarcastically comment to her: “Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women</p><p> that we may seek him with thee?” (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a> AV), quoting Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It is no coincidence that she calls Solomon a roe and hind in :9. Surely her implication is that the daughters of Jerusalem should get on with their own boyfriends, and not stimulate Solomon away from her.</p>


text:
<p>The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes, leaping on the mountains, skipping on the hills<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is the language of fantasy; and is the basis for her nightmare in chapter 3, when she imagines Solomon coming in glory on a carriage / bed- but it was prepared for the daughters of Jerusalem, and not her. I suggest that we have here an absolutely credible insight into the mental processes of a girl in her situation. It really happened:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>My beloved is like a roe or a young hart. Behold, he stands behind our wall! He looks in at the windows. He glances through the lattice<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Windows::. lattice" are literally "gaps". The idea is that they are separated by a stone wall in which there are gaps through which they can look at each other. Again there is a sense of separation between them, and only having their relationship as it were through the gaps. Again, the imagery is unfortunate because a broken down stone wall with gaps is a Biblical picture of the spiritually broken down state of Israel (<a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:5'>Eze 13:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:10'>Eze 13:10</a>). But these lovers cared nothing for such concerns.</p><p>If we read still as "windows" and "lattice", then again we have the impression of furtiveness, secrecy and a concealed relationship. It's as if he comes to her home as she is looking out for him through the closed window blinds and says 'It's all clear, come with me now, let's dash' (:10). And then at the end of it she has to tell him to "flee" back home at daybreak (:17). Note she is in a "hiding place" (:14) from which Solomon calls her out. The obvious question 'Why all the secrecy?' is clearly because the relationship was illicit and mismatched. </p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:6'>Pro 7:6</a> likens himself to a wise man looking out through his lattice window and noticing a man going astray with a woman. But the precise figure is used in <a href='B:260 2:9'>Son 2:9</a> for how his illicit, paganic Gentile girlfriend found his doing this to be so attractive, if not somehow erotic. The connection shows how totally confused Solomon was in his personal spirituality. </p>


text:
<p>My beloved spoke and said to me, Rise up, my love, my beautiful one, and come away<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is reported speech- her hopes of what her lover would say, her fantasy about his words rather than reality. See on :16. For she had decided at the start that the only way out of the problem with the daughters of Jerusalem was to get Solomon to agree to leave Jerusalem and Israel (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). Her heart was in her home in Egypt, and she wanted to get Solomon there. She is presented as the very opposite of Ruth's attitude.</p>&nbsp;<p>But these may be Solomon's words. By contrast, instead of running off to Egypt with her, he wants to take her on a tour of Israel (as in <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>), enthusing about the sights, speaking of them as the things&nbsp; of&nbsp; "our land":&nbsp;He&nbsp;wanted her&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; an Israelite,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he spoke to her as if she was, assuming that he could&nbsp; psychologically&nbsp; and&nbsp; spiritually dominate her so that he could&nbsp; have&nbsp; a little of both- his own carnal fulfilment coupled with spiritual satisfaction. How many times has this been worked out in the experience of a spiritual brother enthusing about the beauty&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp; Truth and spiritual Israel to an Egyptian girl, who&nbsp; only&nbsp; superficially&nbsp; shares&nbsp; his enthusiasm, longing in her heart to have him with her in Egypt:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>for, behold, the winter is past. The rain is over and gone<strong>- </strong></p><p>The romance happened in the spring, the time when Solomon should have been keeping Passover to remember his deliverance from Egypt. But at that very time, he was getting involved with an Egyptian girl.</p>


text:
<p>The flowers appear on the earth. The time of the singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land<strong>- </strong></p><p>The turtledove is a migratory bird which returns to Israel in April; this confirms that this romance is happening in the spring (:11), the time when Solomon should have been keeping Passover to remember his deliverance from Egypt. "The time of the singing" may refer to the Passover feast, and rejoicing in the destruction of Egypt's chariots which Solomon so admired (<a href='B:260 1:9'>Son 1:9</a>). But at that very time, he was getting involved with an Egyptian girl. </p>


text:
<p>The fig tree ripens her green figs. The vines are in blossom. They give forth their fragrance. Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again we see her wanting Solomon to "come away" from the scene in Jerusalem where the daughters of Jerusalem would always be his competitors (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). She has fantasized about him agreeing to this in :10. And so it will ever be in the marriage of believer and unbeliever; the unbeliever will always want to get the believer to "come away" to Egypt. And so it happened with Solomon's heart, finally. </p><p>I am not a fan of trying to interpret the Song as an allegory of Christ and His church. But the blossoming of the fig tree is associated with the soon coming of the bridegroom, possibly alluded to by the Lord in His Olivet prophecy. However we must face the problem that the girl wishes Solomon to "come away" not to Yahweh but to Egypt and her idols.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>My dove in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the mountainside; let me see your face. Let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that they are on different sides of a broken down stone wall, playing peek a boo through the many gaps in it. "Face" is plural, and could be translated "sights", as if he is asking to see her body in a sexual sense. </p><p>The desire to 'see your face' and the reference to being hid in a cleft of the rock is very much the language of Moses desiring to see God's face whilst hid in a cleft of the rock. The point is, that Solomon's desire for his illicit girlfriend should've been instead redirected into a desire to meet God in the spirit of Moses. This is one of many indirect allusions in the Song to spiritual things, but always to point out that those allusions were utterly missed by Solomon and his lover.</p>


text:
<p>Catch foxes for us, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom<strong>- </strong></p><p>I explained on <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a> that the vineyards are representative of her sexuality, which we learn there was guarded by her brothers. It is possible that this verse is in fact her brothers speaking, or her fear of their attempts to catch a "fox" like Solomon from spoiling her vineyard / virginity- which she wants to give him. </p>&nbsp;<p>Keil suggests this is "A vine-dresser's ditty". If we don't accept this is the voice of the brothers, then this could be a cry to the foxes to 'clear off'. But why the fear of foxes? Perhaps this is another call for the potential observers, those who would spoil their tryst, to go away- just as the girl shouts such things in her own mind at the 'daughters of Jerusalem'. Their meeting places were in the countryside, and Solomon sees her work as his- he speaks as if they are joint vineyard keepers in 'their' vineyard where they meet. These rural locations for their meetings explain the many rural allusions in the song. She was a "prince's daughter" with whom Solomon secretly met in the countryside. This to my mind is a more fulfilling explanation than the suggestion that the rural allusions mean she was a simple country peasant whom he had fallen in love with:&nbsp; </p><p>There is an undoubted connection between the record of Samson catching the foxes and using them to destroy vineyards (<a href='B:70 15:4-5'>Jdg 15:4-5</a>) and <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>, where Solomon suggests that he and his girl go and catch the foxes that destroy the vineyards. This seems an allusion to Samson, although this Biblical allusion (as noted on :14) puts Solomon in a poor light, comparing him to the sexually out of control Samson, who was destroyed for his infatuation with Gentile women. Both Solomon and his Gentile girlfriend owned vineyards (<a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 8:11-12'>Son 8:11-12</a>), and both were concerned that the fruit would not be damaged (<a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>; <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>). However, the implication from the allusion was also that in fact Solomon was in the position of the Philistines, worrying about the effect of Samson's foxes:&nbsp;See on <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>My beloved is mine, and I am his<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had at least 1000 women in his life and got involved with many of them at the start of his reign- it was her wishful thinking that he had eyes for her only, and those fears were expressed in her angry and aggressive comments to the "daughters of Jerusalem" whom she rightfully feared were her competitors- see on:7. As noted on :3 and :13, much of this relationship was based around being in love with an image of the other, in love with an expectation and imagination, an idealization of the other, rather than with the other as they really were. For all her self confidence and scheming, she is also presented as an utter fool in believing that she was really Solomon's "only one". </p><p>He browses among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Lilies are representative of the girl's body in a sexual sense (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>; <a href='B:260 6:2'>Son 6:2</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart on the mountains of Bether- There is always the hint of secrecy, of spending the night together in secret and then running away at dawn. This heightened the sense of immediate attraction, but reflected how the relationship could never ultimately work. And her urging of him to just run away is to be understood in the context of her desire for Solomon to run away from the Jerusalem scene, and come with her to Egypt (see on :10,13; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). There is no place known as "Bether". The word can mean "division" or according to some readings, "incense". She saw Jerusalem or Israel as surrounded by mountains, and she wants Solomon to leap over them with her and get away. And perhaps she has the idea of getting him to offer incense in such high places. He is out of step with this idea, instead asking her to jump over mountains and to him in Jerusalem (see on <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>). Always the couple are presented as fundamentally out of step with each other.</p>


text:
<p>By night on my bed, I sought him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but I didn’t find him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Seeking but not finding is the language of condemnation. All the time we get hints in the language used that this Gentile woman is not of God at all, and is the pathway to condemnation. Just as Solomon had warned in Proverbs 7. Having slept with him the night before (Song 2;16,17), she now has a nightmare about him having left her. And indeed this is absolutely psychologically likely. Her dream or nightmare reflected her deepest fears. </p>


text:
<p>I will get up now, and go about the city; in the streets and in the squares I will seek him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but I didn’t find him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her dream reflects the way she walked the streets of Jerusalem whilst he was confined in the palace. Her mother moved to Jerusalem from Egypt, but it wasn’t possible for Solomon and her to easily be together in that house (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>; <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). Again [as noted on <a href='B:260 2:14-15'>Son 2:14-15</a>] we have an allusion to spiritual things, but out of context. Jeremiah on God's behalf ran through the streets and squares of Jerusalem to search for men who would love God in truth (<a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a>). But she runs through the same streets and squares looking to turn a man away from God. </p>


text:
<p>The watchmen who go about the city found me; I asked, Have you seen him whom my soul loves?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Constantly she fears the opposition of the people of Jerusalem. Later in this chapter she has another nightmare of Solomon's kingly bed prepared not for her but for the daughters of Jerusalem, and protected by Israelite soldiers. The implication would be that Solomon's marriages to Gentile women were not popular with Israel, and this contributed to the resentment against Solomon at the end of his life (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). We note that although she comes over as forward and manipulative, she seems to love Solomon from her "soul" (also in :4), although that love was based upon being in love with an image of a man rather than reality, and was totally based upon externalities:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I had scarcely passed from them, when I found him whom my soul loves. I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, into the room of her who conceived me<strong>- </strong></p><p>There is some historical evidence that in Egypt, discussions about marriage were held in the mother's house. Her deepest psychological positions, as reflected in this dream, were that she would get Solomon away from his mother, who had warned him against women like her in Proverbs 31, and into the house of her and not his mother. She says she will not let him go. Perhaps despite the break up of the relationship at the end of the book, they did in fact marry, and Solomon laments that her hands were as bands (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>) and his relationship with her was a being caught in a net. </p><p>She was the fulfilment of what Solomon had written at the same time in <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>: " Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the rooms of death". Solomon's wisdom was given to him as a young man, and the book of Proverbs appears to be collections of the various statements of that wisdom. But about the same time, he also got involved with multiple Gentile women who led him astray from God and to idolatry. The very warnings he gives against the adulteress and Gentile woman were ignored by him; he became the young man who went wrong with women. His girlfriend speaks in the very language of the Gentile woman of Proverbs: "I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house::. into her chamber" (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a> AV). Compare this with "She caught him::. come not near the door of her house::. her house::. the chambers of death" (<a href='B:240 7:13'>Pro 7:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>; <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a>). We see here the warning for all time; that we can know God's ways in theory, whilst disobeying them in practice, absolutely to the letter. Indeed it may be so that the more we know them, the more strongly we are tempted by our nature to break them. </p><p>Yet&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; aware, at least theoretically, of the foolish path&nbsp; he was going down. God had inspired him with the wisdom of <a href='B:240 2:16-17'>Pro 2:16-17</a>, which warned that wisdom would save a man from the Gentile&nbsp; woman who made a covenant with the God of Israel in her youth (in order to marry an Israelite, by implication), but soon forgot it. This was exactly the case of Solomon; yet he just&nbsp; couldn't&nbsp; see&nbsp; the personal relevance of his own wisdom to himself. Solomon could write of the folly of the ruler who oppressed the poor (<a href='B:240 22:16'>Pro 22:16</a>)- and yet do just that very thing. The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her house. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>). This woman he warns of appears to want to serve Yahweh, and presents herself in the very language of the tabernacle (<a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>). And yet Solomon goes and falls for just such a woman. One can only conclude that the more true spiritual knowledge we have, the more prone we are to do the very opposite. </p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and the hinds of the field, that you not stir up, nor stimulate love, until he so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>An oath was typically taken in the name of God in Israel (<a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a>; <a href='B:60 9:18'>Jos 9:18</a>; <a href='B:140 15:14'>2Ch 15:14</a>). But again, this woman is portrayed as lacking any spirituality or relationship with God. She seems terrified that the daughters of Jerusalem would sexually attract Solomon, and this fear leads to her further nightmare which follows.</p>


text:
<p>Who is this who comes up from the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all spices of the merchant?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again the imagery of pillars of smoke coming from the desert towards Jerusalem (:1) is the prophetic image for judgment coming. There is always the hint that this relationship leads to condemnation. The spices brought by merchants connect with the merchant trading of Solomon which resulted in these things being brought to him. Clearly this is Solomon in all his God given glory.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, it is Solomon’s carriage! Sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Carriage" is also "bed". She has been having a secret open air tryst with Solomon on a bed made from leaves under a bower of tree branches. And now she sees with some shock (:6,7) a kingly bed coming toward her::. but not for her to sleep with him in. It is for the daughters of Jerusalem (:10)! This continues her vision of fear which she has on her bed at night (:1). The relationship is full of such distrust and fear that the daughters of Jerusalem will finally get Solomon, and she will not.</p>


text:
<p>They all handle the sword, and are expert in war. Every man has his sword on his thigh, because of fear in the night<strong>- </strong></p><p>This nightmare (:1) of Solomon's bed advancing as a carriage [hence the confusion in the translations between "bed" and "carriage"] was guarded by Israel's best soldiers. They feared something might happen at night; and at night she had slept with Solomon and they had parted from each other at dawn (<a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>). Her nightmare reflects her deepest fears; that the men of Israel were against her relationship with Solomon, and fiercely guarded his kingly bed for the daughters of Jerusalem, and intended to keep her away from it. These men are another form of the night watchmen patrolling Jerusalem at night, whom she imagines had caught her.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon made himself a carriage of the wood of Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Carriage" can also be "bed" as AV. The Egyptian word here used suggests that Solomon really had a relationship with this woman and spoke to her in terms she understood. This failed, illicit romance really happened. For these are the thoughts of the girl in her nightmare (:1). Solomon "made himself" many things (<a href='B:250 2:4-8'>Ecc 2:4-8</a>). That he had made his own wedding bed is therefore unsurprising.</p>


text:
<p>He made its pillars of silver, its bottom of gold, its seat of purple, its midst being paved with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>"He made::." pillars with silver, gold and purple recalls the language of how Solomon made the temple (<a href='B:110 7:6-8'>1Ki 7:6-8</a>). He admits in Ecclesiastes 2 that he loved making things. His apparent&nbsp; zeal for building the temple was really just an expression of his own native temperament and character type, rather than particular love for God's work. And we must analyze our own service of God to see if we aren't doing the same thing, just serving Him in ways which are convenient and reinforce our own native personality type. Such service is not the service of sacrifice and carrying a cross which is required. </p><p>The&nbsp; bed is described in the language of the tabernacle; made of wood,&nbsp; but&nbsp; covered with gold and surrounded by silver pillars, with&nbsp; a mercy seat of purple (<a href='B:260 3:9-10'>Son 3:9-10</a> Heb:). He persuaded himself that&nbsp; his&nbsp; marriage to this woman was some kind of expression of spirituality:&nbsp; The bed was made from cedar brought from Lebanon- and yet the same wood was used for the temple (<a href='B:260 3:9'>Son 3:9</a>). Such was his dualism. The Song is shot through with allusion to the Law and&nbsp; tabernacle&nbsp; rituals; he speaks of making her borders on her clothes&nbsp; (<a href='B:260 1:11'>Son 1:11</a>),&nbsp;probably alluding to the borders of blue to be worn&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; faithful&nbsp; Israelite:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; wanted her to be a spiritual&nbsp; woman,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; going&nbsp; to&nbsp; make her one; many a preacher,&nbsp;&nbsp; teacher,&nbsp; husband,&nbsp; wife,&nbsp; father, mother,&nbsp; child,&nbsp; boyfriend has had to learn the impossibility of this:&nbsp; He wanted to see her as a spiritual woman, and eventually he became persuaded that she was just this. </p><p>For the daughters of Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :7 that this is a nightmare she has on her bed (:1), having slept with Solomon on a bed of leaves in the open air. Now she imagines him having made a luxurious bed::. but not for her. For the daughters of Jerusalem, her rivals! There is always the tension with the daughters of Jerusalem, who can be understood as Solomon’s Jewish wives, or those who were his Jewish harem. In Song of Solomon 2 she wants to bring him into her mother’s bedroom in Egypt, but this is contrasted in the next Song with Solomon’s bed in Jerusalem, prepared for the “daughters of Jerusalem” (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>; <a href='B:260 3:10'>Son 3:10</a>) whom he should have married. Then, with this bed in the background, he tells her how he especially loves her (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>), trying to persuade her that her fears have no basis in reality. </p>


text:
<p>Go forth, you daughters of Zion, and see king Solomon, with the crown with which his mother has crowned him in the day of his weddings, in the day of the gladness of his heart- </p><p>In Proverbs 31 Bathsheba lays the law down with him about his girlfriends, about not marrying Gentiles, and about&nbsp; not&nbsp; drinking, yet here we see Bathsheba with all her&nbsp; motherly pride crowning Solomon on the day of engagement to his wives. Note the plural "weddings". Like David, Bathsheba&nbsp; taught&nbsp; Solomon the principles with great enthusiasm, but&nbsp;&nbsp; she&nbsp; allowed&nbsp; parental&nbsp; pride&nbsp; to&nbsp; make&nbsp; her&nbsp; dismiss&nbsp; the possibility&nbsp; that&nbsp; her&nbsp; son&nbsp; was seriously going astray. But in this nightmare, the Egyptian girl imagines Bathsheba approving Solomon's marriages to the daughters of Zion / Jerusalem</p><p>Or perhaps here we have the girl sarcastically commenting to the Jerusalem girls: “Go forth, O you daughters of Jerusalem, and behold king Solomon”, and goes on to mock the crown his mother Bathsheba had made for him, wishing instead that he would be under the influence of her mother (<a href='B:260 3:11'>Son 3:11</a>; <a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>). Her sarcasm turns to angry defence at times, e:g. when she warns the Jerusalem girls not to stir up “my love” (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>)- i:e. ‘Hands off my Solomon!’. In turn, they ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They in their turn sarcastically comment to her: “Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women</p><p> that we may seek him with thee?” (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), quoting Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves behind your veil-</p><p>Parts of the Song are very sexually explicit once the fairly obvious allusions are figured out. He's describing the vaginal lips of his girlfriend, his intended spouse (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a> etc:); and he has seen "behind your veil", the symbol of her virginity. And yet he glorifies all this in his song. Quite clearly, Solomon was guilty of fornication with the one whom he wished to marry, although the ending of the Song seems to imply the relationship somehow broke up. And this was all right at the beginning of his reign. He seems to have assumed that if he thought his behaviour was OK, then it was. It's rather like how he declared the middle court to be "holy" and a kind of extended altar (<a href='B:140 7:7'>2Ch 7:7</a>)- he doesn't ask God if God would sanctify it, he just decides what is holy and what isn't- Solomon played God, and it led him into sin and loss of faith in God. </p><p>Your hair is as a flock of goats, that descend from Mount Gilead<strong>- </strong></p><p>Throughout the Song, Solomon describes her in Jewish terms,&nbsp; he&nbsp; likens&nbsp; her&nbsp; to many well-known places in Israel: the Heshbon&nbsp; fish pools,&nbsp; the tower of Lebanon etc:, seeing the way her hair draped over her breasts as reminiscent of how Mount Gilead looked (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He wanted to&nbsp;see&nbsp;her&nbsp;as&nbsp; an&nbsp; Israelite&nbsp; girl,&nbsp;and&nbsp;so that was how she appeared&nbsp;to&nbsp;him:&nbsp; She&nbsp; even&nbsp;uses similar language in praise of him (<a href='B:260 1:14'>Son 1:14</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Your teeth are like a newly shorn flock, which have come up from the washing, where every one of them has twins. None is bereaved among them<strong>- </strong></p><p>Without dental science, missing teeth would have been common in those days, even in youth. But she apparently had none missing. Here and :3 "your mouth is lovely" suggests they had already been involved in deep kissing.</p>


text:
<p>Your lips are like scarlet thread. Your mouth is lovely. Your temples are like a piece of a pomegranate behind your veil-</p><p>When Solomon describes her painted lips as being like a thread of scarlet, he uses two Hebrew words which only occur together in <a href='B:60 2:18'>Jos 2:18</a>, describing how the Gentile harlot Rahab hung the scarlet thread outside her home in order to bring about the salvation of her mother and her family. The people of Jericho may well have understood this scarlet thread or rope as a sign of prostitution. Solomon wanted to justify his Egyptian girlfriend by comparing her to Gentile Rahab. And such sophistry goes on at the beginning of every relationship that leads to a marriage out of the Faith:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Your neck is like David’s tower built for an armoury, whereon a thousand shields hang, all the shields of the mighty men<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is that David's tower was built in terraces, and this is how her neck appeared, with her ornaments hanging on the string of her necklace likened to shields. Solomon may be alluding to his 1000 other wives; he is trying to convince her that she is better than them all. She loves him because of his ointment, and he loves her because of her jewellery (<a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:260 1:10'>Son 1:10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). It’s all very human and carnal, based upon the external and not the internal. But this is what Solomon was like. He sees wisdom, even in Proverbs and certainly in Ecclesiastes, as only helpful in that it gives a person a good name and image in this life. </p>


text:
<p>Your two breasts are like two fawns that are twins of a roe, which feed among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Breasts as twins means Solomon considered them, after much observation, to be perfectly identical- apparently something he found attractive. Clearly he had at this point explored her naked body, although not married to her. "The lilies" is likewise a sexual allusion; see on <a href='B:260 2:16'>Son 2:16</a>. He&nbsp;was&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; with this Egyptian girl, especially with her breasts (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>). Yet at the same time he could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee::. be thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always with her love::. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed? But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon. Solomon&nbsp; writes in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that he should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but he had been. Beyond mere hypocrisy, this reveals how Solomon saw himself as somehow beyond his own wisdom and a free moral agent. This is a common temptation for those who think that mere possession of God's truth will somehow of itself justify them.</p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, I will go to the mountain of myrrh, to the hill of frankincense<strong>- </strong></p><p>The myrrh and frankincense were being used as aphrodisiacs, which had their desired effect upon Solomon (:16). And yet they are the language of the temple sacrifices. At the very time Solomon was building the temple and establishing the temple cult, he was using the very same items in his illicit relationship with this Egyptian woman.</p>


text:
<p>You are all beautiful, my love. There is no spot in you<strong>- </strong></p><p>This last phrase is alluded to in the New Testament concerning the spotless nature of the bride of Christ (<a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a>). But upon this has been built the quite unsustainable position that the entire Song is an allegory of the relationship between Christ and His bride. This is simply not sustainable; the sexual allusions, and the final breakup of the relationship after the unsatisfactory tensions between the two of them all shout out against such an approach. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament in the style of its day; whereby words or verses from scripture were applied out of context to situations. It is simply not true that every New Testament quotation of the Old reveals that the surrounding context of the quotation is also relevant to the New Testament context. Going through all the quotations and allusions, it is obvious that this is just not the case. And it seems to me that this idea that the Song is an allegory is a desperate attempt to whitewash Solomon, despite the clear Biblical condemnations of him. </p><p>As he sees her as so entirely beautiful, so she sees him (<a href='B:260 4:7'>Son 4:7</a>; <a href='B:260 5:16'>Son 5:16</a>). This mutuality of praise is indeed part of the "in love" period. But it was all a matter of external observation of each other, and because of that, the relationship fell apart.</p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart on the mountains of Bether- </p><p>There is always the hint of secrecy, of spending the night together in secret and then running away at dawn. This heightened the sense of immediate attraction, but reflected how the relationship could never ultimately work. And her urging of him to just run away is to be understood in the context of her desire for Solomon to run away from the Jerusalem scene, and come with her to Egypt (see on :10,13; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). There is no place known as "Bether". The word can mean "division" or according to some readings, "incense". She saw Jerusalem or Israel as surrounded by mountains, and she wants Solomon to leap over them with her and get away. And perhaps she has the idea of getting him to offer incense in such high places. He is out of step with this idea, instead asking her to jump over mountains and to him in Jerusalem (see on <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>). Always the couple are presented as fundamentally out of step with each other.</p>


text:
<p>Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon. Look from the top of Amana, from the top of Senir and Hermon, from the lions’ dens, from the mountains of the leopards<strong>- </strong></p><p>These northern mountain ranges, forming the northern border of the land, were famed for their inaccessibility. Perhaps the idea is that although so much was against their relationship, Solomon vows to somehow get her from the most inaccessible point::. into his kingly bed in Jerusalem. This is perhaps his answer to her desire that he be like a mountain deer, and jump over the mountains of division, out of Jerusalem and back with her to Egypt (see on <a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>). </p><p>Or we can understand that Solomon takes her on a tour of Israel, enthusing about the sights, speaking of them as the things&nbsp; of&nbsp; "our&nbsp;land" &nbsp;(<a href='B:260 2:10-13'>Son 2:10-13</a>):&nbsp; He&nbsp; wanted&nbsp; her&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; an Israelite,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he spoke to her as if she was, assuming that he could&nbsp; psychologically&nbsp; and&nbsp; spiritually dominate her so that he could&nbsp; have&nbsp; a little of both- his own carnal fulfilment coupled with spiritual satisfaction. How many times has this been worked out in the experience of a spiritual brother enthusing about the beauty&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp; Truth and spiritual Israel to an Egyptian girl, who&nbsp; only&nbsp; superficially&nbsp; shares&nbsp; his enthusiasm, longing in her heart to have him with her in Egypt:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride<strong>- </strong></p><p>Even though her heart&nbsp; was&nbsp; far&nbsp; away&nbsp; in Egypt, she described herself in Jewish terms because that was how he saw her; he calls her his "sister", as if she was actually Jewish- whereas she wanted him to be her Egyptian “brother”. The relationship was doomed from the start. We note that "sister" is a term of endearment used in Egyptian love poetry. Solomon clearly was well versed in the thinking and language of Egypt. Everything points to him being spiritually rotten from his youth.</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again. He warned&nbsp; the&nbsp; typical&nbsp; young&nbsp; man&nbsp; about&nbsp; being captivated by the eyelids of the Gentile woman (<a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>); yet it was the eyes of Miss&nbsp; Egypt&nbsp; that&nbsp; he openly admitted stole his heart (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:5'>Son 6:5</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>You have ravished my heart with one of your eyes, with one chain of your neck<strong>- </strong></p><p>In <a href='B:240 25:11-12'>Pro 25:11-12</a>, especially in the LXX, Solomon likens wise words to beautiful jewellery and necklaces; they are (LXX) set "in a necklace of sardius". But Solomon was blown away by the jewellery of his illicit Gentile girlfriend; he looked on the external, rather than on the internal, despite teaching the value and beauty of the internal. "The necklace you are wearing has stolen my heart" (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a> GNB). And indeed gentile women did steal his heart away from Yahweh. </p><p>The general contrast with Solomon's warnings is marked. Thus <a href='B:240 5:19'>Pro 5:19</a> "A loving doe and a graceful deer- let her breasts satisfy you at all times. Be captivated always with her love". The idea is "don't be ravished with the breasts of a Gentile and don't have many wives; be content with your first wife". But Solomon was (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>), and he had many wives; he totally refused to see the personal relevance of the truth and wisdom he taught. </p>&nbsp;<p>Despite his ravishment&nbsp; with Pharaoh's daughter as outlined in the Song, she never&nbsp; fulfilled him; indeed, none of his women did. In the Song he speaks&nbsp; of&nbsp; how&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; with this Egyptian girl, especially with her breasts (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>; <a href='B:260 3:5'>Son 3:5</a>; <a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>). Alluding to&nbsp; this&nbsp; he&nbsp; could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with&nbsp; the&nbsp; wife&nbsp; of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee::. be&nbsp; thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always&nbsp; with&nbsp; her love::. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed?&nbsp; But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; writes&nbsp; in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but&nbsp; he&nbsp; had been. He spoke to others with absolutely no thought&nbsp; as&nbsp; to whether his words had an application to himself. Effectively&nbsp; he was kidding himself, on a deeply internal level, that&nbsp; he hadn't married out of the faith. The obviousness of all&nbsp; this&nbsp; is&nbsp; in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to drum the warning home to us. How tragic&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; should go on to comment that such a person would die&nbsp; for&nbsp; want&nbsp; of&nbsp; instruction (<a href='B:240 5:23'>Pro 5:23</a>). Solomon had all the instruction&nbsp; he could wish for; but he didn't allow it to really sink&nbsp; home&nbsp; one&nbsp; little&nbsp; bit. He&nbsp; hit&nbsp; out&nbsp; on&nbsp; the search for an ultimately satisfying woman, but out of the 1000 he had he never found one (<a href='B:250 7:28'>Ecc 7:28</a>), even when he sat down and analyzed each of them. And even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women&nbsp; didn't&nbsp; seem&nbsp; to&nbsp; achieve him the support he desired from their&nbsp; home&nbsp; countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them (<a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine! The fragrance of your perfumes than all kinds of spices!<strong>- </strong></p><p>His praise of her is her praise of him in <a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>. There is a mutuality in the falling in love process, and we see it clearly expressed here. The whole document has every indication that it is indeed a real, historical description of an actual relationship Solomon had. </p><p>Here Solomon does the very opposite of what he says in <a href='B:240 27:16'>Pro 27:16</a>; for here he also uses the word for "oil" or "perfumes" about the perfume of his illicit Gentile girlfriend, which he found so attractive. Yet in <a href='B:240 27:16'>Pro 27:16</a> he warns that a bad woman has such oil; but he falls for her. He utterly failed to personalize his wisdom, it flowed through his mouth and mind without taking any personal lodgment within him. And we must be warned by this ability of human nature. </p>


text:
<p>Your lips, my bride, drip like the honeycomb. Honey and milk are under your tongue. The smell of your garments is like the smell of Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>The&nbsp; strange woman has words like a honeycomb (<a href='B:240 5:3'>Pro 5:3</a>); and&nbsp; yet&nbsp; this&nbsp; is&nbsp; exactly&nbsp; how Solomon found his woman's words (<a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>):&nbsp;He refused his own wisdom of <a href='B:240 7:21'>Pro 7:21</a>: "With the flattering of her lips, she seduced him".</p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a> argues as if mere intellectual assent to the truths he was teaching would keep a man safe from sexual temptation and the flattery of bad women. But Solomon himself possessed all this truth and failed miserably in this area. The Hebrew literally refers to the smoothness of her lips; and Solomon admired the smoothness of the lips of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (s:w. <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). Again we see Solomon doing the exact opposite of the wisdom and theoretical truth he was blessed with.</p>


text:
<p>A locked up garden is my sister, my bride<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "my sister, my spouse". Solomon's assumption that he was Messiah, the promised seed of David, presumably led him to assume that he was likewise the promised seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No less that four times he calls his Egyptian girlfriend "my sister, my spouse" (<a href='B:260 4:9-10'>Son 4:9-10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:12'>Son 4:12</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). This repeated emphasis seems to me to be an allusion to the way in which the patriarchs called their wives their sisters (<a href='B:10 12:10-20'>Gen 12:10-20</a>; <a href='B:10 20:1-18'>Gen 20:1-18</a>; <a href='B:10 26:6-11'>Gen 26:6-11</a>). And yet clearly enough, these incidents were lapses of faith for which they were rebuked. Yet Solomon didn't want to see it like that; they did it, therefore he could. David his father had horses and many wives; therefore he could. His sense of morality, of right and wrong, was controlled by the precedents set by his worthy ancestors. And so often we see this in supposedly Christian lives- the weak elements of our fathers we tend to feel are perfectly acceptable for us too. We do just what Paul says we should not do- we compare ourselves amongst and against ourselves, rather than against the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>).</p><p>A locked up spring, a sealed fountain<strong>- </strong></p><p>The imagery of water, well and cistern in a sexual context is found on Solomon's lips in <a href='B:240 5:15'>Pro 5:15</a>; <a href='B:240 5:18'>Pro 5:18</a>. But having written all that, he now uses these terms about his illicit Gentile girlfriend. Solomon saw her as a “paradise”, a garden with rivers and exotic fruits, surrounded by a wall- exactly the language of Eden. And she was a fount of “living waters” (<a href='B:260 4:12-13'>Son 4:12-13</a>; <a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a> RVmg:), the language of Messiah. He saw her as the Kingdom / Eden personified. And yet her response to being described in this way is inappropriate- for she invites him to come and eat the fruit of the garden (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>), exactly after the pattern of Eve destroying Adam. Yet Solomon didn’t want to see this connection; she was the Kingdom to him, just as so many have felt that having their new partner means that nothing, not even the Kingdom, is meaningful any more. Although he had slept with her, he considers her locked up and sealed. Again we see how Solomon was in love with an image of this woman which he had in his own mind, and which just didn't correspond to reality:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates, with precious fruits: henna with spikenard plants-</p><p>The non Hebrew word here used for "orchard" suggests that Solomon really had a relationship with this woman and spoke to her in terms she understood. This failed, illicit romance really happened. Her "shoots" and "fruits" are clearly allusions to her sexuality.</p>


text:
<p>spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of incense tree; myrrh and aloes, with all the best spices<strong>- </strong></p><p>He presents her as the garden of Eden. And yet he totally fails to take the allusion further, and perceive that by breaking divine law in 'eating' of her in sex, he was setting himself up for a catastrophic fall which would affect not only him but all Israel. </p>


text:
<p>a fountain of gardens, a spring of living waters, flowing streams from Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>It seems likely that Solomon wrote down his inspired Proverbs (a result of the wisdom God&nbsp; gave&nbsp; him) and the Song about the same time. In Proverbs he uses&nbsp; the figure of a well of living water to describe spiritual words&nbsp; and&nbsp; thinking (<a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 14:27'>Pro 14:27</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>). Yet this is&nbsp; the&nbsp; very&nbsp; figure which he uses concerning his worldly bride (<a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a>):&nbsp;He wanted to see her how she wasn't. He sees her as the garden of Eden, and yet 'eats' in her in defiance of Divine law.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Awake, north wind; and come, you south! Blow on my garden, that its spices may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and taste his precious fruits- </p><p>This is an open invitation to Solomon to have sex with her. She sees herself as a living aphrodisiac. She doesn't wish to be a closed garden to him (:14). She is the very fulfilment of the bad Gentile woman of Proverbs 7, and yet Solomon refuses to see the connections. He was the young man being led astray, and down to the grave by this woman. </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>I have come into my garden-</p><p>As noted on <a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>, this clearly means that he accepted her invitation to sleep with her:&nbsp;</p><p>My sister, my bride<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "my sister, my spouse". Solomon's assumption that he was Messiah, the promised seed of David, presumably led him to assume that he was likewise the promised seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No less that four times he calls his Egyptian girlfriend "my sister, my spouse" (<a href='B:260 4:9-10'>Son 4:9-10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:12'>Son 4:12</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). This repeated emphasis seems to me to be an allusion to the way in which the patriarchs called their wives their sisters (<a href='B:10 12:10-20'>Gen 12:10-20</a>; <a href='B:10 20:1-18'>Gen 20:1-18</a>; <a href='B:10 26:6-11'>Gen 26:6-11</a>). And yet clearly enough, these incidents were lapses of faith for which they were rebuked. Yet Solomon didn't want to see it like that; they did it, therefore he could. David his father had horses and many wives; therefore he could. His sense of morality, of right and wrong, was controlled by the precedents set by his worthy ancestors. And so often we see this in supposedly Christian lives- the weak elements of our fathers we tend to feel are perfectly acceptable for us too. We do just what Paul says we should not do- we compare ourselves amongst and against ourselves, rather than against the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>).</p><p>I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. Eat, friends! Drink, yes, drink abundantly, beloved<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea may be that they hear some voice urging them as friends and lovers to feast and get drunk on love. For clearly Solomon has entered the closed garden of the previous verses, and they are having sex. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I was asleep, but my heart was awake<strong>- </strong></p><p>After the sex of :1, she again has a nightmare that he has left her, as she does in chapter 3. This is true to life; it is psychologically inevitable that a woman in her situation, with so many reasons to fear she will lose him, will have such nightmares:&nbsp;</p><p>It is the voice of my beloved who knocks<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :12 for "dove". At the same time as Solomon was having this romance, at the start of his reign, he was writing up his Proverbs; including <a href='B:240 8:34'>Pro 8:34</a>: "Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my door posts". This may be an intentional contrast with the bad woman if Proverbs 7, who tempts men to furtively enter the doors and gates of her house at night. And Solomon failed in this; for the Song of Solomon speaks of the "gates" of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (<a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>), outside which Solomon waited secretly at night (<a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>; <a href='B:260 5:4'>Son 5:4</a>). He does precisely what he condemns and warns others against. He failed to personalize wisdom, apparently thinking that mere possession of such Divine truths was enough to justify him, regardless of personal behaviour. </p><p>Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my head is filled with dew, and my hair with the dampness of the night-</p><p>He sees her as "undefiled" even though he has just slept with her and she is no longer a closed garden (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; Song of Solomon 5; Song of Solomon 1). They both create images of each other which are simply not true to reality, and fall in love with those images rather than reality. In the dream, Solomon has been out all night. We continue to get the impression of the secret, illicit nature of their relationship, unable to be seen in public together (<a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I have taken off my robe. Indeed, must I put it on? I have washed my feet. Indeed, must I defile them?<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is asleep and doesn't want to go and open the door immediately, because she has no attractive robe on, and by walking over the dirt floor to the door, her feet would become dirty. She is aware that Solomon's praise of her has often been of her external adornment with jewellery and clothing, and she fears to be seen by him without them. This is typical of the whole nature of their relationship.</p>


text:
<p>My beloved thrust his hand in through the latch opening. My heart pounded for him<strong>- </strong></p><p>He apparently spoke or called to her at this time (:6) but she made no response because she was obsessed with putting on her make up. It was this focus upon externalities which cost her the relationship at that point. Her nightmare reveals the inner truth of the situation and relationship, which unconsciously she recognized.</p>


text:
<p>I rose up to open for my beloved. My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock<strong>- </strong></p><p>The scene is true to psychological reality. She fears being seen by him without her attractive clothing and makeup on; but then her love for him gets the better of her. She has begun painting herself with myrrh, but with the liquid still dripping off her fingers, she goes to the door and fumbles with the lock with her slippery fingers. But it is too late. He's gone (:6). The whole scene looks forward to the New Testament pictures of the unworthy not opening immediately to the Lord Jesus when He knocks on their door at His return. Like the foolish virgins, they want time to prepare, rather than trusting in His love and realizing that no amount of external religious preparation can qualify them for Him. Although I deny that the Song is an allegory of Christ and His bride, at this point I would say that this particular scene is indeed used as a parabolic representation of the reaction of the unworthy to the Lord's return. Unless we respond to His coming immediately, then we will not find Him (<a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a>). The immediacy of our response will be a function of our faith in His love for us, and our love for Him- as well as our understanding that we cannot make ourselves acceptable to Him by mere external appearance and cosmetic adornment:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had left<strong>- </strong></p><p>Presumably because he feared being spotted by the night watchmen on patrol. We get the impression a curfew was in place in the city. There is always the sense of fear that they would be caught together (<a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>). See on ;5.</p><p>He had gone away. My heart went out when he spoke. I looked for him, but I didn’t find him. I called him, but he didn’t answer<strong>- </strong></p><p>Notice the sequence here:</p><p>While she sleeps at night, the bridegroom comes and knocks [unworthy virgins sleeping instead of being awake; the Lord Jesus comes; <a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a> uses the same figure, of the Lord's return being like a knock]</p><p>She replies that she's not dressed properly, makes excuses about her feet, she can't come and open [the unworthy don't respond immediately]</p><p>He tries to open the door from the outside, putting his hand through the latch-hole [by grace, after the pattern of Lot being encouraged to leave Sodom when he hesitated, the Lord will be patient even with sleepy virgins in His desire for their salvation]</p><p>Her heart is moved with desire for him [the rejected still call Jesus 'Lord, Lord'; they love Him emotionally]</p><p>She starts dressing herself up, and then is overtaken by desire and rushes to the door, her hands dripping all kinds of perfume and make up over the lock as she opens it [cp. the virgins going to buy oil, the unworthy trying to prepare themselves all too late, not trusting that their Lord loves them as they are at the moment of His coming]</p><p>But he's gone , he withdraws himself [all too late, the door is shut, He never knew them]</p><p>Her soul fails [the shock of rejection]</p><p>She seeks him but doesn't find him, calls but he doesn't answer [<a href='B:240 1:28'>Pro 1:28</a>; the rejected call, but aren't answered; they seek the Lord early, but don't find Him. <a href='B:350 5:6'>Hos 5:6</a> is likewise relevant: "They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the LORD; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them"].</p><p>She feels tired of her relationship with him ("sick of love"). </p><p>She is persecuted by the world around her ["condemned with the world"]</p><p>The basic point is that if we don't immediately respond to the Lord's knock, we show ourselves to not love Him enough. If we don't open immediately, it's as if we didn't open at all. The Lord wants us as we are, bleary eyed and without our make up, but with a basic overriding love of Him , and faith in the depth of His love, which will lead us to immediately go out to meet Him . This will be the ultimate and crucial divide- between those who believe in the Lord's love for us, who have known the humanly unknowable love of Christ; and those who think they need to prepare themselves to make themselves good enough for Him. Solomon called to the girl through the keyhole: ":::my undefiled::.". But she doesn't want to immediately come to Him because she doesn't want to meet him with 'defiled' feet (<a href='B:260 5:2-3'>Son 5:2-3</a>). She couldn't believe his words, that in his eyes, she was undefiled. And the enormity of the passion of Christ for us is likewise so hard for us to accept. In <a href='B:260 3:1'>Son 3:1</a> we find the girl again at night, dreaming of having Solomon with her. But when one night he does actually come, she doesn't go to meet him immediately. And there's a warning for us. Like Israel we may 'desire the day of the Lord', study prophecy about it, write about it, enthuse about it. But when He comes, to what end will it be to us? Will we in a moment drop everything and go to Him, believing that He loves us just as we are? Or will we run off to buy oil, slap make up on:::? The tragedy of Solomon's girl was that she started putting her make up on, and then her heart smote her and she opened the door, her hands dropping perfume all over the bolt (<a href='B:260 5:5'>Son 5:5</a> RV). She finally realized that he had loved her for who she was, how she was. But it was tragically too late. He'd gone. We need to learn that lesson now, to know the love of Christ::. so that in that moment when we know for sure 'He's back!', we will without hesitation go to Him with that perfect / mature love, that casts out fear. </p>


text:
<p>The watchmen who go about the city found me. They beat me. They bruised me. The keepers of the walls took my cloak away from me<strong>- </strong></p><p>The word for "cloak" is only used about the inappropriate clothing of Jerusalem's wanton women (<a href='B:290 3:23'>Isa 3:23</a>). She had previously met these men in her previous dream of Song of Solomon 3, and it's as if they had then given her a warning. But now they beat and bruised her. She lives in constant fear that soldiers guard Solomon's bed from her, and the night watchmen are after her. AV "took away my veil from me" could imply that these men raped her. Then we would read "bruised" in the sense of rape as in <a href='B:330 23:3'>Eze 23:3</a>; <a href='B:330 23:8'>Eze 23:8</a>. </p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved, that you tell him that I am faint with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her worst nightmare on that night of losing her beloved is that she would then bump into the daughters of Jerusalem, in her bedraggled and bruised state (:7). And so it happens in her dream. Her words here could be read as saying that she is "sick of love" (AV), that she is over it, it's all too much for her, and they need not fear her competition any more. Or, it can be read as "fain with love", as if she defiantly tells them that he is still her beloved, and she is passionately in love with him. The ambiguity is perhaps intentional, to show us the understandable but contradictory feelings within her.</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>How is your beloved better than another beloved, you fairest among women? How is your beloved better than another beloved, that you so adjure us?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The daughters of Jerusalem mock her as "fairest among women", repeating Solomon's term of endearment to her. They were clearly aware of his relationship with her. And there she was, without her make up, bruised and bedraggled after being raped (see on :7). So they are being deeply sarcastic. The daughters of Jerusalem seem to be implying she has other "beloveds" and they mock her claims to see anything uniquely wonderful in her beloved Solomon; bear in mind that his Hebrew name meant "beloved".</p>


text:
<p>Beloved </p><p>My beloved is white and ruddy. The best among ten thousand<strong>- </strong></p><p>David had been described as the chiefest among ten thousand (<a href='B:100 18:3'>2Sa 18:3</a>), and yet this is how Solomon’s illegal girlfriend describes him. He had clearly told her all about his father David- and she evidently pleased Solomon by describing him as being like his father, even though she probably had never known David. He sought a wife who would be a surrogate parent rather than a help-meet. Perhaps she&nbsp; has in view Solomon's 1000 wives. She may imply that he is better and more worthy than them all, and she is his special one. So she naively believes; for all her manipulation and hard headed self confidence, she is a fool to believe this.</p>


text:
<p>His head is like the purest gold. His hair is bushy, black as a raven<strong>- </strong></p><p>The description of him as having a head of gold and then proceeding down his body in description to his feet::. all recalls the picture of the idol image seen in Daniel 2. Constantly we have hints that when compared with other scripture, this woman and this relationship are absolutely spiritually fake.</p>


text:
<p>His eyes are like doves beside the water brooks, washed with milk, mounted like jewels<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon sees her as a dove with dove's eyes (<a href='B:260 1:15'>Son 1:15</a>, also <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>), and she then says here that he has dove's eyes (<a href='B:260 5:12'>Son 5:12</a>). They tend to praise each other in the same language. Indeed this is an accurate record of a romance. But the praise is all of externalities, no attention is paid to the character, and there is absolutely no spiritual dimension to the relationship. This says so much about Solomon. This lack of attention to true spirituality means that his love of Divine wisdom at the time was purely of an intellectual, theoretical nature. And this is the warning for us. For he was writing this love song in his youth when he married foreign women, and it was then that he received Divine wisdom and wrote it up in the book of Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>His cheeks are like a bed of spices with towers of perfumes. His lips are like lilies, dropping liquid myrrh<strong>- </strong></p><p>She has just tried to make herself pretty with liquid myrrh and perfume. She had delayed opening the door to him because of it, and landed herself in so much trouble (:5). She fails to see that attraction is not based on external things like myrrh. But actually they have had no other basis for their relationship. Even she is without her perfume and myrrh and a bedraggled rape victim (:7), she can only think in terms of externalities. For that is all these two have between them. </p>


text:
<p>His hands are like rings of gold set with beryl. His body is like ivory work overlaid with sapphires<strong>- </strong></p><p>She seems to claim she knows his naked body. But she praises his hands not for the hands in themselves, but because of all the gold rings with jewels which he wears, giving the impression his hands&nbsp; / fingers are gold. Even in her distraught state, she can only think of him in terms of externalities; for that was the sole basis of their relationship.</p>


text:
<p>His legs are like pillars of marble set on sockets of fine gold. His appearance is like Lebanon, excellent as the cedars<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :14, even in her desperate situation, she can only praise Solomon for his external appearance. There is no implication that she praises him for his personality or character:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>His mouth is sweetness; yes, he is altogether lovely<strong>- </strong></p><p>She hereby boasts that she has experienced deep kissing with him. She no longer wishes to keep the relationship secret. As he sees her as so entirely beautiful, so she sees him (<a href='B:260 4:7'>Son 4:7</a>; <a href='B:260 5:16'>Son 5:16</a>). This mutuality of praise is indeed part of the "in love" period. But it was all a matter of external observation of each other, and because of that, the relationship fell apart.</p><p>This is my beloved, and this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem- </p><p>She seems to boast to them that he loves her, he is her friend. She clings on even in her desperation to the myth he had got her to believe, that he loved her uniquely and not the daughters of Jerusalem, whom he disparaged to her as "thorns" compared to her as a lily (<a href='B:260 2:1-3'>Son 2:1-3</a>). Solomon ought to have considered wisdom his sister and friend (<a href='B:240 7:4'>Pro 7:4</a>), as he had exhorted others; but instead he considers this Egyptian woman to be both those things.</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>Where has your beloved gone, you fairest among women? Where has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is bitter sarcasm. They ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her, using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They sarcastically quote Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>In <a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a> she has invited Solomon to enter her closed garden and he does so. The reference is to them sleeping together, and the language of beds, feeding and lilies has elsewhere been used in the song for sexual activity. She is therefore telling the daughters of Jerusalem that she has slept with Solomon, and therefore he is hers exclusively (:3). For all her self confidence and forwardness, she is betrayed as a laughable fool to believe this. In <a href='B:260 7:6'>Son 7:6</a>; <a href='B:260 7:8'>Son 7:8</a>, Solomon likewise openly talks about their sexual encounters; their relationship is now no longer secret.</p>


text:
<p>I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine. He browses among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Being in the lilies has been language elsewhere used in the Song for sex. I noted on :2 that she is retorting to the daughters of Jerusalem that because she has slept with Solomon, therefore he is uniquely hers and this, she thinks is her final answer to her competitors. But of course her argument holds no water. She appears foolish and naive, for all her sexual manipulation of Solomon. </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>You are beautiful, my love, as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem, awesome as an army with banners<strong>- </strong></p><p>This may continue the dream she has been having beginning in <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>. Or it may be that now Solomon appears on the scene and comforts her with expressions of his unique love for her, to calm her after her nightmare. Tirzah was obviously an established city at the time, and was later briefly the capital of the ten tribe kingdom. But it was destroyed at the time of the exile, and this would be evidence that the song indeed dates from Solomon's time, and the Song is not the fantasy of some post exilic writer as the critics lamely claim; see on <a href='B:260 7:4'>Son 7:4</a>. Jerusalem was the "perfection of beauty" (<a href='B:230 48:3'>Psa 48:3</a>; <a href='B:230 50:2'>Psa 50:2</a>), and yet through this allusion Solomon is showing that unlike for David, Zion was not his chiefest joy, but this Gentile girl was.</p>


text:
<p>Turn away your eyes from me, for they have overcome me. Your hair is like a flock of goats, that lie along the side of Gilead<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon is defying his own wisdom in <a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>: "Don’t lust after her beauty in your heart, neither let her captivate you with her eyelids". The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp;of&nbsp;Solomon&nbsp;is&nbsp;driven&nbsp; home time and again. He warned the typical&nbsp;young&nbsp;man&nbsp; about&nbsp; being captivated by the eyelids of the Gentile woman (<a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>); yet it was the eyes of Miss&nbsp;Egypt&nbsp;that he openly admitted stole his heart (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:5'>Son 6:5</a>):&nbsp;We note his total inability to be self critical and have a sense of temptation and the possibility of personal failure. This seems to go with the territory of assuming that mere possession of Divine truth somehow justifies us of itself. </p>


text:
<p>Your teeth are like a flock of ewes, which have come up from the washing; of which each one has twins; none is bereaved among them-</p><p>Without dental science, missing teeth would have been common in those days, even in youth. But she apparently had none missing. Here and in <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a> "your mouth is lovely" suggests they had already been involved in deep kissing.</p>


text:
<p>Your temples are like a piece of a pomegranate behind your veil<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has seen behind her veil, the symbol of her virginity, for he has entered her closed garden by sleeping with her (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). But he likes to still perceive her as a virgin. They both create images of each other which are simply not true to reality, and fall in love with those images rather than reality. Although I am no fan of the allegorical interpretation of the Song, it could be argued that this looks ahead to Christ's imputation of righteousness to His bride. </p>


text:
<p>There are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins without number<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon boasts that he has many Jewish queens and concubines, but there is only one woman, the Egyptian, that he truly loves (:8,9); he even calls her his “sister”, associating himself thereby with Egypt. See on :13. This is his answer to her nightmare which began in <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>, about the daughters of Jerusalem. Perhaps at that time he had 60 queens and 80 concubines, a number which would later rise to 700 wives and 300 concubines (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). </p>


text:
<p>My dove, my perfect one, is unique-</p><p>Solomon seeks to persuade the girl that really she is his special love, better than all his women of :8. We marvel at her naivety in believing him.</p><p>She is her mother’s only daughter. She is the favourite one of her who bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her blessed; the queens and the concubines, and they praised her-</p><p>This is simply not the case, obviously. She has just had a nightmare about the daughters of Jerusalem mocking her. And she is aware of Solomon's existing harem (:8). And he tries to persuade her that actually his queens, concubines and the daughters of Jerusalem think she is in fact wonderful. They clearly do not, and she is presented as hopelessly foolish in believing Solomon, who likewise presents himself as no more than a sweet talking womanizer. </p><p>The allusion is to "the daughters will call me happy / blessed" (<a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a>); Solomon has a vision of this Egyptian girl as becoming as one of the founding mothers of Israel. But her heart is far from it. He speaks as if she is in fact already this. He is in love with an image and projection upon her which is simply unrealistic and untrue.</p>


text:
<p>Who is she who looks forth as the morning, beautiful as the moon, clear as the sun, and awesome as an army with banners?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The reference is to the morning star. This apparently is common Egyptian love poem language. Solomon was clearly very influenced by Egypt from a young age, and likes to try to talk to the girl as it were in her own terms. He presents her as the brightest of all the stars, and more awesome than an entire army. The idea is that although he admits he does have a harem (:8), he seeks to persuade her that she is the brightest of all the stars, she is the son and moon, and greater than an army with banners. The significance of "banners" is that she had rejoiced that his banner over her was love (<a href='B:260 2:4'>Son 2:4</a>). He is saying that his banner over her was far greater than that over a whole army of women. And she appears, for the time being, to believe his story. Which may well have been a standard story trotted out to all his many women.</p>


text:
<p>I went down into the nut tree grove, to see the green plants of the valley, to see whether the vine budded, and the pomegranates were in flower<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "I went down into the garden of nuts". Entrance to the locked garden has been used by the couple to reference their lovemaking (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). He could be implying that he had slept with her in the hope that she was "in flower" and would fall pregnant. He calculated that this was going to comfort her more than anything at this time; he is trying to show that he is very serious about their relationship. "Pomegranates" have been used as erotic imagery in <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 4:13'>Son 4:13</a>. And she uses his reasoning here to urge him to sleep with her in <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Without realizing it, my desire set me with my royal people’s chariots-</p><p>The idea is that he assures her that the sexual encounter of :11 had made him "beside himself" [NEV "Without realizing it"]. He felt he had been as it were whisked away by the passion she stirred in him, "she put me in the chariots of Ammi Nadib". Perhaps this was an Egyptian phrase. He is by all means trying to persuade her that he found her sexually superlative. We noted the confusion between the carriage / chariot and the marriage bed of Solomon in <a href='B:260 3:9'>Son 3:9</a>. </p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p> Return, return, Shulammite! Return, return, that we may gaze at you<strong>- </strong></p><p>This would appear to be the sarcastic comment of the Israelite girls after the Egyptian girl has run off away from them. They call her the Shulammite, the Jerusalem girl, mockingly. For they all know she is a dark skinned foreigner and not really a Shulammite. The girl is presented in <a href='B:260 5:7'>Son 5:7</a> as bedraggled, without her makeup and having been raped. Having made her defence of herself to them, she runs off; and they sarcastically invite her to return so they can look at her. This would assume that the nightmare dream which began in <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a> is here continuing.</p><p>Lover</p><p>Why do you desire to gaze at the Shulammite, as at the dance of Mahanaim?- </p><p>Perhaps the tension between the two groups- the Jerusalem women and the Egyptian girl and her family (see on :8,9)- is behind the enigmatic reference to “the company of two armies” or “the dance of the two camps”. Solomon has to now carefully broker between his Egyptian woman and the daughters of Jerusalem. He asks them rhetorically why they want to gaze at her. The idea is of a girl dancing before two camps, one who support her with encouragement, the other who detest her and shout insults. And Solomon would be saying that he doesn't wish for this competitive situation to arise. He may be implying to the daughters of Jerusalem that they too need fear no competition, and so there need be no dance of comparison. And yet Solomon confirms that indeed this Egyptian girl is a Shulammite, a girl of Jerusalem, Yerushalem. She is one of the daughters of Jerusalem, so he decides; and therefore there should be division between her and the daughters of Jerusalem, as if they were in two camps. Again we observe that Solomon projects an image onto her, as an Israelite daughter of Zion::. and believes it. Regardless of the reality.</p>


text:
<p>How beautiful are your feet in sandals, prince’s daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skilful workman<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues the lover's praise of the Egyptian girl as she dances in the preceding verse in <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a>. But the praise of her is from the feet to the head, rather than from head to foot as in the previous praise of her in Song of Solomon 4, 5, 6. This might be appropriate to her being praised whilst dancing, as her footwork would be observed. "The turns of your thighs" (Heb:) would also be an observation relevant to dancing. We have confirmed that she was no peasant girl, as some commentators imagine due to misreading the earlier metaphors about Solomon as a shepherd of sheep, but rather a "prince's daughter", likely Pharaoh's daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Your body is like a round goblet, no mixed wine is wanting. Your waist is like a heap of wheat, set about with lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>The comparison with "mixed wine" shows again that Solomon was well acquainted with wine from an early age, and viewed it positively. Perhaps this is why his mother specifically warns him against alcohol in Proverbs 31. His later turning to alcohol mentioned in Ecclesiastes 2 would therefore be an example of how the weaknesses of youth are developed in old age, unless they are cut out of life and thought. Solomon's path to apostacy can be traced as beginning in his youth, rather than as the result of some mid life crisis. </p>


text:
<p>Your two breasts are like two fawns, that are twins of a roe<strong>- </strong></p><p>Breasts as twins means Solomon considered them, after much observation, to be perfectly identical- apparently something he found attractive. "The lilies" is likewise a sexual allusion; see on <a href='B:260 2:16'>Son 2:16</a>. He&nbsp; was&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; with this Egyptian girl, especially with her breasts (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>). Alluding to&nbsp; this&nbsp; he&nbsp; could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with&nbsp; the&nbsp; wife&nbsp; of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee::. be&nbsp; thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always&nbsp; with&nbsp; her love::. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed?&nbsp; But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; writes&nbsp; in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but&nbsp; he&nbsp; had been. </p>


text:
<p>Your neck is like an ivory tower<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is that her neck was very long, and this kind of praise of women is found in Egyptian love poetry. Again we see Solomon influenced by the culture of Egypt. And yet women emphasizing their long necks are condemned in <a href='B:290 3:16'>Isa 3:16</a>. Indeed the description there of the condemned daughters of Zion sounds very much like those we are reading in the Song of Solomon about the Egyptian girl. </p><p>Your eyes are like the pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bathrabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again we note that Solomon likens her to the geography of Israel. She was an Egyptian, but he wishes to see her as an Israelite, he projects this image onto her, and falls in love with the image rather than the reality. Even though as noted above he was very much immersed himself in the language and culture of Egypt. Heshbon at that time was under Israelite control, but soon afterwards it was lost by them (<a href='B:290 16:8-9'>Isa 16:8-9</a>). Again this is evidence that the Song was written indeed in the times of Solomon and not, as the critics claim, much later. See on <a href='B:260 6:4'>Son 6:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Your head on you is like Carmel. The hair of your head is like purple. The king is held captive in its tresses<strong>- </strong></p><p>“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her” (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>) is a clear reference back to Solomon’s own entanglement with this girl. In his younger days, he had found “the hair of thine head like the purple of a king [i:e. he imagined her to be suited to him, the King of Israel, when she wasn’t]; the king is held captive in the tresses thereof” (<a href='B:260 7:5'>Son 7:5</a> RV).</p>


text:
<p>How beautiful and how pleasant you are, love, for delights!<strong>- </strong></p><p>Heb. "among all the delights" could reinforce Solomon's claim that he considered her the most beautiful of all his women; although he carefully says that his other wives also provided "delights". He clearly implies that he has already had sex with her, as admitted openly in :8. After the conflict with the daughters of Jerusalem in Song of Solomon 5, 6, the relationship is out in the open, and Solomon is confirming her own statements that they had already had sex (<a href='B:260 6:2'>Son 6:2</a>). </p>


text:
<p>This, your stature, is like a palm tree, your breasts like its fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>He admires her for being tall. Dark skinned Egyptians were held to be generally taller than Israelites (<a href='B:290 45:14'>Isa 45:14</a>), and Solomon finds this attractive. </p>


text:
<p>I said, I will climb up into the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit. Let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, the smell of your breath like apples<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon here clearly states that he has had sexual activity with this Egyptian woman. He likens himself to a small man with her much taller than him. Clearly he has been dominated by the Gentile, just as he had warned Israelites not to be. He considers himself free of any personal moral restraint.</p>


text:
<p>your mouth like the best wine, that goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding through the lips of those who are asleep<strong>- </strong></p><p>He says that deep kissing with her gives the same after effect as drinking enough wine that you talk in your sleep afterwards. It’s all very human and carnal. This was all a conscious disregard of Bathsheba’s warning to Solomon not to love wine nor to be destroyed by foreign women (<a href='B:240 31:4'>Pro 31:4</a>). And Solomon published her words in his anthology of wisdom known as the book of Proverbs:&nbsp;He likewise condemns love of alcohol throughout Proverbs, just as he does relationships with Gentile women. But he does the very things he condemns. His wisdom, as he admits in Ecclesiastes, was “far from” him personally. He failed to personalize the truths he knew. And in this he is a warning to all who know God’s Truth. For like him, we can be tempted to assume that mere possession of it justifies us. </p><p>He is directly going against the wisdom he had taught in <a href='B:240 7:21'>Pro 7:21</a>: "With the flattering of her lips, she seduced him". </p><p>The Hebrew literally refers to the smoothness of her lips; and Solomon admired the smoothness of the lips of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (s:w. <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). Again we see Solomon doing the exact opposite of the wisdom and theoretical truth he was blessed with. Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a> argues as if mere intellectual assent to the truths he was teaching would keep a man safe from sexual temptation and the flattery of bad women. But Solomon himself possessed all this truth and failed miserably in this area. </p><p>We may also enquire as to how did Solomon know about wine unless even at a relatively young age, he knew about the sensation of wine from personal experience? He had again denied his own wisdom: “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red</p><p> when it goeth down smoothly” (<a href='B:240 23:31'>Pro 23:31</a> RV). </p><p>Grammatically, "that goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding through the lips of those who are asleep" would imply this is spoken by the woman. In this case, she as it were playfully completes Solomon's sentence. This would explain the change of gender of the speaker in the middle of the verse. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I am my beloved’s. His desire is toward me<strong>- </strong></p><p>The woman comes over as incredibly naive to believe that indeed, Solomon's desire is toward her and she is his; despite his admission to having a harem of women and virgins in waiting to become his wives in <a href='B:260 6:8'>Son 6:8</a>. As noted on Song of Solomon 1, she comes over as self confident, manipulative and forceful of her agenda. But even she is presented as being duped by smooth words. It's a case of "deceiving and being deceived". The allusion is to "your desire shall be for your husband" (<a href='B:10 3:16'>Gen 3:16</a>). The Genesis ideal was that one man and one woman have mutually exclusive desire for each other. But she is going ahead with a relationship with a man whom she knows has a harem, and he likewise accepts that. And it could be argued that the man having desire for the woman is in fact an inversion of <a href='B:10 3:16'>Gen 3:16</a>, where the woman is to have desire for the man.</p>


text:
<p>The Bride Gives Her Love</p><p>Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field. Let us lodge in the villages<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Lodge" is "pass the night", "among the henna bushes" (Heb:). So she is setting up another night together, clearly for sex in bushes thought to be aphrodisiacs. Still they appear to be unable to openly live and sleep together in the palace; for they are still unmarried, and the opposition with the daughters of Jerusalem is still unresolved:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Let’s go early up to the vineyards. Let’s see whether the vine has budded, its blossom is open, and the pomegranates are in flower. There I will give you my love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Vines and pomegranates are sexual symbols in <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 4:13'>Son 4:13</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>; Song of Solomon 8; Song of Solomon 2. It could be that she urges him to sleep with her because she considers herself fertile. For he has used the figures in this way in <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>, in trying to persuade her that he is very serious about their relationship and is sexually attracted to her in the hope of her getting pregnant. Again we note how forward she is, and "there I will give you my love" sounds as if she is sexually dominant and has control over Solomon, for all his power and glory:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The mandrakes give forth fragrance. At our doors are all kinds of precious fruits, new and old, which I have stored up for you, my beloved- </p><p>The emphasis upon aphrodisiacs throughout the Song underlines the impression that these two are only in love on a physical level. If external adornment and drugs are required by them for the enjoyment of their relationship right at the start of it, then there is clearly no bond of personality or spiritual aspect to it at all. And so it proves finally unsatisfactory, and the love song doesn't end with marriage and children as we expect, but with cynical and bitter breakup.</p><p>Whose "doors"? The language is that of <a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a> about a householder who brings forth things new and old. She seems to have in mind his returning with her to Egypt under the influence of her aphrodisiacs and sexuality. That is the continued theme in the next verse (<a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Oh that you were like my brother, who nursed from the breasts of my mother! If I found you outside, I would kiss you; yes, and no one would despise me<strong>- </strong></p><p>She deeply wished&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon was her brother, i:e. an Egyptian, because in&nbsp; that&nbsp; case&nbsp; their relationship could be much more open, they would&nbsp; not&nbsp; be despised because of their love, and Solomon could come&nbsp; and live in her mother's house back in Egypt (:1,2). The courtship was held in lonely, secluded places, with the fear of being seen and mocked (<a href='B:260 5:6'>Son 5:6</a>; <a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>; <a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:11-12'>Son 7:11-12</a>). Clearly&nbsp;she&nbsp;was attracted to Solomon rather than to the God of Israel. Solomon describes her in terms of the geographical features of Israel, he wished her to be as one of the founding mothers of Israel (<a href='B:260 6:9'>Son 6:9</a> = <a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a>). But in the end, she was an Egyptian girl, and her heart was always going to be there. She hates the way she's not accepted in Israelite society, and their relationship has been a series of clandestine meetings in the open air, with her having nightmares in Song of Solomon 3, 5 about the Israelite soldiers and watchmen finding her. </p><p>Sin never satisfies. The daughters of Jerusalem and the watchmen (i:e. the prophets? Gad, Nathan? Whoever wrote Psalms 127 as a warning to Solomon?) were constantly watching them and being&nbsp; critical&nbsp; of&nbsp; her (<a href='B:260 5:7'>Son 5:7</a>; <a href='B:260 5:16'>Son 5:16</a>; <a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>), they despised her. See on :6. Contrary to what Solomon had tried to kid her, the daughters of Jerusalem did not love and adore her (<a href='B:260 6:9'>Son 6:9</a>). They despised her, and the girl now sees things as they really are- straight after having sex at the end of Song of Solomon 7.</p><p>She speaks of her taking the initiative and grabbing hold of and kissing Solomon in the street. This is exactly the picture of the wicked Gentile woman of <a href='B:240 7:13'>Pro 7:13</a>. Again the point is made that Solomon was blind to his own wisdom, it took no personal lodgment in his own heart. And so it can be with those who hold and teach God's truth today.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p> I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers, then I found acceptance in his eyes<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is very confident of her own beauty, as in <a href='B:260 1:5'>Son 1:5</a>; <a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>. She comes over as bold and ever on the initiative; she goes out looking for him (<a href='B:260 3:1-5'>Son 3:1-5</a>; <a href='B:260 5:6-7'>Son 5:6-7</a>). She is the very fulfilment of Solomon's 'bad woman' of the Proverbs. She hears how the new queen for Solomon is still a minor and her breasts not developed yet (<a href='B:330 16:7-8'>Eze 16:7-8</a>). And so she bitterly reflects about her own sexual adequacy and how "I was a wall [with turrets]", and her breasts which she speaks of were "in his eyes as one that found favour" (<a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>). For Solomon had repeatedly praised her breasts&nbsp; (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>; <a href='B:260 3:5'>Son 3:5</a>; <a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>). But now she sees that was all surface level; he is going to marry a young girl from the daughters of Jerusalem, once her breasts have grown. And she has had to endure watching the engagement ceremony.</p>


text:
<p>I would lead you, bringing you into my mother’s house, who would instruct me-</p><p>Her desire is still as it was at the start of the Song, as noted on <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>. She wanted to be instructed by her Egyptian mother, not by Solomon; who was in the business of writing his Proverbs at this time to instruct in God's ways. And she wants to be the one who would "lead you" [Solomon], or guide him. She didn't want his instruction, but wanted to instruct him in the ways of Egypt. It is the intended reversal of how Isaac brought and lead Rebecca into his mother's tent (<a href='B:10 24:67'>Gen 24:67</a>). </p><p>I would have you drink spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranate<strong>- </strong></p><p>This could be an offer of conditional sex, if Solomon were to agree to her returning to Egypt and being under the instruction of her mother. I take <a href='B:260 8:1-8'>Son 8:1-8</a> to be her fantasy, her desperate dream, for Solomon's return to her and for them to have an open, legitimate, public relationship but on her terms- in Egypt. She dreams of asking him to commit to her ("set me as a seal upon your heart", <a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a>), but concludes by telling him to flee far away from her, although she still calls him "my beloved" (<a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>). It's a tragic, unfulfilled ending. </p>


text:
<p>His left hand would be under my head. His right hand would embrace me<strong>- </strong></p><p>The conditional tense of "would" is significant. As suggested on :2, it could be part of her fantasy. Or it could also be her attempted manipulation. She seems to be saying ‘I’ll have sex with you, as you offered in <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>, if you agree to be an Egyptian’ (and <a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>; <a href='B:260 5:4-6'>Son 5:4-6</a> would imply they did have intercourse). But throughout the Song, Solomon describes her in Jewish terms,&nbsp; he&nbsp; likens&nbsp; her&nbsp; to many well-known places in Israel: the Heshbon&nbsp; fishpools,&nbsp; the tower of Lebanon etc:, seeing the way her hair draped over her breasts as reminiscent of how Mount Gilead looked (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He wanted to see&nbsp;her&nbsp;as&nbsp;an&nbsp;Israelite&nbsp;girl,&nbsp;and&nbsp; so that was how she appeared to him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, that you not stir up, nor stimulate my love, until he so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again she tries to stop the daughters of Jerusalem, the Jewish candidates as Solomon's wives, from being attractive to him. But her bitter adjuration of them is mere words, it has no power:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem </p><p>Who is this who comes up from the wilderness, leaning on her beloved?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The answer of the daughters of Jerusalem is said as a final triumph. They bid her watch an engagement procession coming into Jerusalem from the wilderness outside the city, with a young woman or girl (see on :8) leaning on her beloved, Solomon [for so his name means in Hebrew]:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Beloved</p><p>Under the apple tree I aroused you. There your mother conceived you. There she was in labour and bore you<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Egyptian girl watches in shock at the engagement procession coming from the desert, realizing with shock that she has been trounced, and all Solomon's words of unique affection were proved untrue as he arrived with his latest girl. Her angry response is totally imaginable. It is, effectively, "But you and me, we had sex together! And now::. you're marrying another woman! And she's only a kid, she's not even got developed breasts!". It's the stuff of movies. She even claims they had slept together at the very spot where his own mother both conceived and gave birth to him, as if this was intended to be a defining moment in cementing their relationship. She has likened him to a hind deer, and hinds were known to return to their own birthplace beneath a tree to give birth to their own fawns. She considers therefore that their sex together at that spot was really a unique bond which precluded him from now marrying another woman:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm; for love is strong as death. Jealousy is as cruel as Sheol. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a very flame of Yahweh<strong>- </strong></p><p>These would appear to be Solomon's words to his new bride with whom he has just arrived, a marriage vow demanding her total loyalty to him. His mention of jealousy was made in the hearing of the Egyptian girl. There was indeed a jealousy as cruel as the grave between the Jewish girls and Solomon’s Egyptian lover. And so the Song ends on a most unhappy&nbsp; note; Solomon is unfaithful and the two separate, rather than there being the&nbsp; consummation we might expect. As noted on :21, he is alluding to the language of covenant with God (<a href='B:50 11:18'>Deu 11:18</a>) and applying it to his wife's covenant with himself. He is warning that just as Yahweh is jealous if His covenant is broken, so he will be. And yet he felt free to flout the covenant himself, as he had just demonstrated by doing all this in view of the Egyptian girl he had been so infatuated with:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon made the classic mistake of assuming that his will and word were effectively equivalent to the word of God. In <a href='B:240 6:21'>Pro 6:21</a> he speaks of the need to bind the law about your heart and neck; but in <a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a> he asks his lover to “set me as a seal upon thine heart” and arm. And often in Proverbs he uses the language of the blessings for keeping God’s law and turns them into the blessings for keeping his law; e:g:&nbsp; “My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart” (<a href='B:240 7:1-2'>Pro 7:1-2</a>). And we all do the same in essence, whenever we assume that our consciences are effectively the will of God; when we ‘play God’ by allowing our words and will to count as if they are His word. </p><p>It is God’s word that is to be the seal upon our heart. It is that which is to be bound in our hearts and or a sign upon our hearts (<a href='B:50 11:18'>Deu 11:18</a>). That was the real sign of the covenant with God. But Solomon considers that the covenant with Yahweh could be subverted into a binding covenant between his wife and himself. Even though he himself had two timed her and had multiple partners.</p>


text:
<p>Many waters can’t quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, he would be utterly scorned<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had taught that the sexually unfaithful man will pay all the wealth of his house because of it, and still will not make things right (<a href='B:240 6:31'>Pro 6:31</a>). Solomon claims in this hasty marriage vow that although he is wealthy, he now has found true love with his next wife, which cannot be purchased for money. And yet in the end, he did give all the wealth and glory of his house for his sins, because his wives turned away his heart from Yahweh and his kingdom / house suffered because of it, as he so often laments in Ecclesiastes. And he was indeed utterly scorned after his death (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>), as he foresaw coming at the end of his life in several passages in Ecclesiastes.</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>We have a little sister. She has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister in the day when she is to be spoken for?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The girl has arrived leaning upon Solomon. But she is still a minor and her breasts not developed yet (<a href='B:330 16:7-8'>Eze 16:7-8</a>). Before her day of being spoken for, the day of actual marriage, the daughters of Jerusalem vow they will prepare her to be a replacement for the Egyptian woman (see on :9).</p>


text:
<p>If she is a wall, we will build on her a turret of silver. If she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is the language with which Solomon once described the Egyptian girl. The daughters of Jerusalem vow to turn this young girl into a woman just as good as the Egyptian. The idea of enclosing her and keeping her as a wall may mean that they promise to keep her chaste until the wedding, unlike the Egyptian woman whom they all knew would not have been a virgin at any wedding with Solomon (<a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>; <a href='B:260 6:12'>Son 6:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had a vineyard at Baal Hamon. He leased out the vineyard to keepers. Each was to bring a thousand shekels of silver for its fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is another parable of a vineyard, of which there are at least two in scripture. The vineyard may refer to virginity or sexuality (as in <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>). His 1000 shekels received for it may refer to his 1000 wives. The Songs have likened the Shulamite and her sexuality to a vineyard (<a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>), and her romantic meetings with Solomon appear to have sometimes been in a vineyard. Solomon spoke of her breasts as grapes (<a href='B:260 7:7'>Son 7:7</a>). But Solomon's vineyard was associated with Baal-Hamon- Lord / husband of a multitude. She finally realized that he was a womanizer, who would go on to have over 1000 women in his life::. Lord [or husband] of a multitude. </p>


text:
<p>My own vineyard is mine alone<strong>- </strong></p><p>Perhaps his 1000 wives and concubines lay behind her reference to the 1000 shekels that Solomon can have for his vineyard (<a href='B:260 8:12'>Son 8:12</a>). But now she was splitting up with him, her vineyard was hers alone, her grapes were now solely at her disposal and were not his any more.</p><p>The thousand are for you, Solomon; two hundred for those who tend its fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :8 that this talk of vineyards forms an inclusion with <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>, where the girl's vineyard is her virginity, which she had given Solomon, much to her brothers' anger. Now she insists her vineyard is hers alone and not his. And he can let his 1000 wives (:11) have his own vineyard. Those who tend the fruit may refer to the daughters of Jerusalem, whom she saw as being responsible for getting the young girl of :8 to get engaged to Solomon, and who were the servants of his 1000 wives.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>You who dwell in the gardens, with friends in attendance, let me hear your voice!<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is very hard to interpret, but the idea seems to be that he addresses the Shulamite ["you" is singular feminine in the original]. He sees her as still there "in the gardens", where they used to have their trysts. And he addresses also the listening daughters of Jerusalem, the "friends in attendance" upon the young girl of :8 whom he has just gotten betrothed to. "Let me heart your voice" is the very phrase he has used to the Shulamite in <a href='B:260 2:14'>Son 2:14</a>. I take this to mean that he is asking the Shulamite, in the presence and audience of the daughters of Jerusalem, not to forsake him. He still wants to hear her voice. She responds negatively by telling him to go away (:14), and yet still calls him her beloved. This leads me to the suggestion offered on :14 that this ill-fated relationship only ends for a time; and Solomon does in fact marry Pharaoh's daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Go away, my beloved. Be like a gazelle or a young stag on the mountains of spices- </p><p>The Song ends abruptly, with the relationship at an end. The entire book has no particular plot or storyline. It begins with her talking about sex, and after various breakups and tensions, they abruptly leave each other. And this is the path of so many who live their lives without God in their relationships. There is no real plot, it's all about present pleasure, and so it ends. We are left feeling this, and seeing how this sad, vain, pointless, painful experience of "love" falsely so called will play its part in the disillusion and depression of Solomon in later life. We have the record of that in Ecclesiastes, and it is a picture of our postmodern, immoral age. </p><p>The final couplet of the Song is one of bitter sarcasm, typical of the worst order of romantic breakup. Solomon says that his "companions"- the daughters of Jerusalem whom she had so hated- are listening carefully to her, as he is. And she responds by telling him to run away, whilst still calling him her "beloved"- for although jealousy is cruel as the grave, her love for him was unquenchable by many waters. Or perhaps this too is sarcasm. So the Song ends with Solomon in rather a bad light- off to his next women, whilst the Egyptian girl walks off the scene bitterly protesting her love for him and how she's a victim of circumstance and Israelite jealousy. Yet Solomon, presumably, authored the Song. I read it therefore in the same way as I do Ecclesiastes- his jaded statement of how life has been for him, how he sought fulfilment of his human lusts but it never worked out, leaving him with a tragic sense of unfulfilment because he had not gone God's way. </p><p>We may well enquire why the Song was written and preserved. For who wants to keep such a record of a failed relationship, of passion which turned to pain? It is here that Divine inspiration comes into play. For the recording of it was inspired, as was the record of the nihilism of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, for our learning. That we might see the end of sin, of thinking that mere possession of God's truth is enough, and not personalizing it. Another take is that the girl was indeed the daughter of Pharaoh (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), and despite this stormy start to their relationship, the break up of Song of Solomon 8 was only temporary and they did in fact marry; see on <a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>. And yet the Song of Songs is preserved as a record of how unspiritual relationships don't ultimately work. For she turned away his heart from Yahweh to the idols of Egypt. In the end, despite the apparent victory of Solomon's lust and power at the end of the Song, it is she who wins. For she turns his heart away from Yahweh and Israel, and to her idols and Egypt:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4></h4><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There was a man in the land of Uz-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Later scripture assumes that Job was a real historical person (<a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a>; <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>), although the entire book is poetry, and clearly isn't to be taken as real time recording of words spoken. It is a drama, concluding with a thunderstorm approaching and the revelation of God Himself. "The whole is divided into&nbsp;three&nbsp;parts—the prologue, poem proper, and epilogue. The&nbsp;poem,&nbsp;into three— (1) The dispute of Job and his three friends; (2) The address of Elihu; (3) The address of God. There are&nbsp;three series in the controversy, and in the same order. The epilogue also is threefold; Job's justification, reconciliation with his friends, restoration".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As will be noted further on this chapter, it would seem he lived in patriarchal times. This would explain why there is no reference to the exodus from Egypt, which is to be found in nearly all subsequent scripture apart from Job. Uz appears to be the relative of Abraham of <a href='B:10 22:21'>Gen 22:21</a>. But much of scripture was rewritten under inspiration at the time of the restoration and also in Hezekiah's time. This explains why ancient Hebrew terms are used along with later Hebrew, with copious connections to the restoration prophecies of later Isaiah. And as noted on :7, there is allusion to Persian concepts too- appropriate if the book was reapplied to the Jews in Persia. Judah and Israel in captivity were struggling with the questions raised in the drama of Job; Job and his children become representative of God's people. His children suffered because of their sins. Job as the righteous remnant also suffered, but was restored. This speaks of the restoration from exile possible for Judah and Israel. They for the most part refused it. But the key was for the faithful remnant to appreciate that they too had sinned, as Job did, even though they were pleasing to God. All was under God's control; the book deconstructs the popular views of evil, a satan being, and suffering being a direct consequence of personal sin. This was required for the exiles. We note that Job is not presented as a Jew, but one of the surrounding peoples related to Abraham. The hero is not strongly Jewish and is presented without genealogy; and that was a lesson for the exiles too, for the prophetic intention was that Jews and Gentiles would repent and form a multiethnic people of God in the restored Kingdom. The name of Yahweh is likewise not mentioned until Yahweh is revealed at the very end of the book. They had effectively forgotten His Name in exile, in real spiritual terms; but through their sufferings and repentance, His Name would be revealed to them at the end.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Whose name was Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He appears to be the "Jobab" of 1 Chronicles 5, indeed the LXX states he is this person. "Job" may come from an Arabic word meaning 'repentance'; and that really is the appeal of the book, for the repentance of God's people, especially the exiles, so that God's saving purpose might be brought forward. The problem of suffering is secondary to this theme of the book.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>That man was blameless-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God's opinion of Job was that he was "blameless". But as the drama progresses, Bildad argues that if Job were in fact "blameless" then God would not cast him away (<a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "blameless" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a> s:w:), and yet he is driven to the conclusion that the "blameless" and sinner are "destroyed together" by God (<a href='B:220 9:22'>Job 9:22</a> s:w:). It's quite possible that in depression and periods of suffering, we can come to have a lower view of ourselves than that which God has of us; just as at other times we can have a higher view of ourselves spiritually than we ought to. There is true guilt, the guilt which we should take, and false guilt. And Job seems to have picked up the false guilt thrown upon him by Bildad. We too need to learn this difference between false and true guilt.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And upright-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God's opinion of Job was that he was "upright". But as the drama progresses, the friends argue that if Job were in fact "upright" then God would not be afflicting him (<a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>; <a href='B:220 8:6'>Job 8:6</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "upright" and therefore cannot find God (<a href='B:220 23:7-8'>Job 23:7-8</a> s:w:). As discussed above, he absorbs false guilt and becomes influenced by the guilt placed upon him by his religion and "friends" amongst the "sons of God".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And one who feared God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> A true son of Abraham and Joseph (s:w. <a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a>; <a href='B:10 42:18'>Gen 42:18</a>). It seems Job lived in the patriarchal age. The phrase is also used about the righteous remnant amongst the captives in Babylon / Persia, for whom this book was apparently rewritten to comfort them (<a href='B:290 50:10'>Isa 50:10</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And turned away from the evil-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job begins the book by being described as a man who shunned [the Hebrew word is also translated “to be without” and “to reject”] ra, “evil”. Michel understands ra here to refer to ‘the evil one’, the Canaanite god of evil, whom Job disbelieved and rejected (W:L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic (Rome: Bible Institute Press, 1987) Vol. 1 p. 29). One of the many themes in Job is the deconstruction of the 'satan' myths of the time, many of which are alive and well today. See on <a href='B:220 3:8'>Job 3:8</a>. Job was aware that he had indeed "turned away from evil" and feared God; it was those things, rather than the traditional wisdom of the friends, which he came to see was the true "understanding" (<a href='B:220 28:28'>Job 28:28</a> s:w:). The phrase is also used about the righteous remnant amongst the captives in Babylon / Persia, for whom this book was apparently rewritten to comfort them (<a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a>). See on <a href='B:230 34:14'>Psa 34:14</a>.</p>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a> Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This Psalm can be understood as a general introduction to the Psalms, summing up the way of the Godly. We should note from this verse that the teaching is not that we should have nothing to do with sinners; but rather that we should not walk in their way nor share their judgments of situations. This is the art of being the light of the world- to be in the world, as the Lord Jesus was, to engage constantly with it, but to walk, stand and judge in God's way. It is the "way" of sinners which will perish (:6); our judgment is therefore according to our overall "way", rather than occasional actions of sin or righteousness. <a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a> seems to allude to Lot's progressive apostasy, speaking of the righteous man not walking, standing or sitting with the wicked- in other words, the righteous man will learn from Lot's mistakes.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Any serious reading of the Psalms raises repeated questions as to the original context of each Psalm. Some were written by David, but only parts of them seem to apply to his life; some verses clearly apply to other historical contexts, especially the situation of the exiles in Babylon and the restoration. A verse here and there has clear relevance to the Lord Jesus, but the surrounding verses don't. Some verses are quoted in the New Testament but the surrounding contexts don't appear to fit the context in which the verse is used. I suggest the resolution of all this is to understand that the Psalms were written largely by David for use in the future temple, or in the sanctuary as it existed at his time; but under Divine inspiration, they were rewritten and reapplied to various later historical contexts. This explains why some verses in a Psalm are very relevant to e:g. the restoration from Babylon, but other verses aren't; they remain only clearly appropriate to David. This also helps explain why the Septuagint (which is the preferred version for quotation in the New Testament) is in places very different from the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. The points of major difference are likely a result of this process of rewriting.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><strong>The Inspired Re-Writing Of The Old Testament In Babylon</strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Briefly, here are corroborative reasons for thinking that perhaps the whole existing canon of Old Testament Scripture was [under inspiration] edited, re-written and codified during the exile in Babylon:</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- According to Jewish tradition, Ezra edited and produced the Pentateuch in its present form in Babylon (Carl Kraeling, The Synagogue (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956) pp. 232-235 reproduces plates from the synagogue wall at Dura-Europas showing Ezra doing this in Babylon). This would account for the record of Jacob in exile being so verbally similar to the allusions made to it in the restoration-from-Babylon prophecies in Isaiah. There was certainly great scribal activity in Babylon- 2Ma_2:13 speaks of Nehemiah founding a library of the Jewish scriptures there. This gives another perspective on the way Nehemiah’s prayer in Nehemiah 1 is so full of references to Deuteronomy- if the latter had just been re-written and presented to the Jews in Babylon. The commands to build the tabernacle are repeated in Exodus, and there is the record of Israel's golden calf apostasy set in the middle of them. <a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a> to <a href='B:20 31:18'>Exo 31:18</a> give the tabernacle building commands, then there's the golden calf incident, and then the commands are repeated in Exodus 35-40. Surely this was edited in this manner to give encouragement to the exiles- the commands to rebuild the temple had been given in detail in Ezekiel 40-48, but the exiles failed- and yet, the implication runs, God was still willing to work again with His people in the building of His sanctuary despite their failure. There is good internal reason to think that the Pentateuch likewise was re-written in places to bring out the relevance of Israel's past to those in captivity. Consider the use of the word pus, 'scatter'. It was God's intention that mankind should scatter abroad in the earth and subdue it (<a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a>); but it required the judgment of the tower of Babel to actually make them 'scatter' (<a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a>). Thus even in judgment, God worked out His positive ultimate intentions with humanity. And this word pus is the same word used with reference to Judah's 'scattering' from the land into Babylonian captivity (<a href='B:330 11:17'>Eze 11:17</a>; <a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a>; <a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a>; <a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a>). The intention, surely, was to show the captives that they had been scattered as the people had at the judgment of Babel / Babylon, but even in this, God was working out His purpose with His people and giving them the opportunity to fulfill His original intentions for them.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- The Talmud claims that the majority of the prophetic books were re-written and edited into their present form during the captivity, under the guidance of a group of priests called "The Great Assembly" (M. Simon and I:W. Slotski, eds, The Soncino Talmud: Babba Bathra 14b - 15a (London: The Soncino Press, 1935) Vol. 1 pp. 70,71). There are many verbal points of contact between Chronicles and the returned exiles.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- Time and again we encounter the phrase "to this day" in the historical books of the Old Testament (e:g. "the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there to this day", <a href='B:120 16:6'>2Ki 16:6</a>)- and each time it appears the reference is to the time of the restoration, when presumably those books were edited and rewritten as relevant for the Jews, either those still in Babylon or those who had returned to the land. A good case can be made, for example, that the book of Judges was rewritten at that time in order to show that God's people don't need a King in order to be His people, but rather they can be ruled by Spirit-filled leaders (See W:J. Dumbrell, 'No King In Israel', Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament Vol. 25 (1983) pp. 23-33).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- The way Deuteronomy refers to cities East of Jordan as being "on this side Jordan" (e:g. <a href='B:50 4:41'>Deu 4:41</a>; <a href='B:50 4:49'>Deu 4:49</a>) would suggest that the editor of the book was writing from a location East of Jordan- likely Babylon. The comment in <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a> that "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day" sounds very much as if it were written in the captivity, lamenting the way that the local tribes still lived in Zion. "The children of Judah" is very much a phrase used about the exiles. Thus books like Joshua were written up in the captivity in order to show Judah how they were repeating the sins of their forefathers, and appealing to them thereby to learn the lessons. It's even possible that the lament that "Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel unto this day" (<a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a> RV) is a reference to "Geshem the Arabian" and Sanballat dwelling amongst Israel at the time of their return (<a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a> etc:).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- It has been observed that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings have certain similarities. For example, they all quote the Deuteronomy version of Israel's earlier history, leading to the suggestion that Deuteronomy was the first of the collection, a kind of introductory background history. The curses listed in Deuteronomy 28 are all especially relevant to the situation in Judah before the Babylonian invasion, and a number of the curses are alluded to in Lamentations as being descriptive of the situation after the final destruction of Jerusalem. Some of the curses can have little other application, e:g. <a href='B:50 28:41'>Deu 28:41</a> speaks of begetting children, "but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity". Other relevant passages are <a href='B:50 28:36'>Deu 28:36</a> (a king taken captive), 49,50,52. These "former prophets" (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) appear to have been edited during the exile as history which spoke to the concerns and needs of the exiled people of God (The similarities of style, language and indications of common editing are explained in detail in Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); there is a good summary in Terrence Fretheim, Deuteronomic History (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989). See too M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy And The Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)). This combined history speaks mainly of the southern Kingdom, which was the group who went to captivity in Babylon; and it explains why this captivity was justified, as well as giving many examples of where repentance could bring about a restoration (<a href='B:110 8:46-53'>1Ki 8:46-53</a> is specific). This history addresses the questions which concerned the captives- does God abandon His people for ever? Are Israel entirely to blame for what happened? Is there hope of restoration after receiving Divine judgment and breaching His covenant? Can God have a relationship with His people without a temple? To what extent will God always honour the promises to Abraham and David? Should other gods also be worshipped? Reading these books from this perspective reveals how incident after incident was especially selected by the inspired editors in Babylon in order to guide God's people there. Take the story of Naaman's Hebrew "maid". Naaman had been the enemy of Israel, and that little child [Heb:] was one of the children of those taken captive. But she witnessed to her captor; he turned to Yahweh; and his skin became like that of "a little child" (<a href='B:120 5:14'>2Ki 5:14</a>)- like her. The message was obvious. The children of the captivity were likewise to witness to their captors and bring them into covenant with Yahweh.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- A comparison of Psalms 14, 53 illustrate this process of re-writing at Hezekiah's time. These Psalms are both "A Psalm of David", and are virtually identical apart from <a href='B:230 53:5'>Psa 53:5</a> adding: "There were they in great fear, where no fear was; For God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: Thou hast put them to shame, because God hath rejected them". This surely alludes to the Assyrian army encamped against Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 32:1'>2Ch 32:1</a>), put into fear by the Angels, and returning "with shame of face to his own land" (<a href='B:140 32:21'>2Ch 32:21</a>). Yet both Psalms conclude with a verse which connects with the exiles in Babylonian captivity: "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Then shall Jacob rejoice, and Israel shall be glad". So it would appear that the initial Psalm was indeed written by David; the version of Psalms 14 which is now Psalms 53 was added to and adapted in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), and both versions had a final verse added to them during the exile. A number of Psalms appear to have some verses relevant to the exile, and others relevant to earlier historical situations. It would seem that an inspired writer inserted the verses which spoke specifically to the exilic situation. Psalms 102 is an example. <a href='B:230 102:2-12'>Psa 102:2-12</a>; <a href='B:230 102:24-25'>Psa 102:24-25</a> a appear to be the original lament; and the other verses are relevant to the exile. Psalms 22 likewise appears to have had vv. 28-32 added with reference to the exiles; other examples in Psalms 9, 10; Psalms 59; Psalms 66; Psalms 68; <a href='B:230 69:34'>Psa 69:34</a>; Psalms 85; Psalms 107; Psalms 108, 118.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- There are evident similarities between the vocabulary and style of Zechariah, Job and the prophets of the restoration. Thus both Job and Zechariah refer to the ideas of the court of Heaven, "the satan" etc. My suggestion is that Job was rewritten during the exile, hence the many points of contact between Job and Isaiah's prophecies about the restoration. When we read that Job has suffered less than his iniquities deserve (<a href='B:220 11:6'>Job 11:6</a>), this is the very term used to describe Israel's sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>). Job, "the servant of the Lord", is being set up as Israel, just as that same term is used about Israel in Babylon throughout the latter part of Isaiah. Job's mockery by the Arabian friends perhaps parallels the Samaritan and Babylonian mockery of Judah; his loss of children is very much the tragedy of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians which Lamentations focuses upon. And Job's final revival and restoration after repentance would therefore speak of the blessed situation which Judah could have had at their return to the land. Job's response to the words of God and Elihu would then speak of Judah's intended repentance as a result of God's word spoken to them by prophets like Haggai and Zechariah. There are many connections between Job and the latter parts of Isaiah which speak about the restoration.</p>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>To You, my strength, I will sing praises. For God is my high tower, the God of my mercy- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As noted on :16, Dvid was confident that God would deliver him from his hopeless situation, in the house encircled by men sent to murder him (:1). He was confident that one day he would sing praises to God for the deliverance; either the next morning (:16), or in the eternal dawn of God's Kingdom upon earth.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2>Through God we shall do valiantly, for it is He who will tread down our adversaries- </h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David sees in the victory against Edom a guarantee that God will give them victory against future adversaries. This could be argued to be over interpretation; because as noted on :9, Divine blessing was related to whether Israel kept the covenant or not. And David seems to fail to emphasize this conditional element in God's help, just as he downplayed it in his enthusiasm to see Solomon as the fulfilment of the promised Messianic seed. And this led to Solomon's arrogance and spiritual collapse.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2>So I will sing praise to Your name forever, that I may fulfil my vows daily- </h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David's vision of eternity was praising God eternally, and every day of that eternity he would spend fulfilling the vows he had made to God in this life. Whilst his conception of "days" appears inappropriate to existence outside the space-time continuum, it is true enough that the nature of our eternity will to some degree reflect our visions of it now. If like David we have praise welling up within us and we seek to just express it far better, without the limitations of our humanity- then this is what our eternity will be like. We will not simply be "given" a form of existence, by God's sovereign choice; who we eternally shall be is who we desire to be in this life.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Also to You, Lord, belongs grace, for You reward every man according to his work- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :11. God feels every sin, and judges it at the time, searching our hearts even for our motives- and He rewards sin with the death sentence. For the wages of sin is death. And yet, we don’t die. The fact God views sin like this, and yet by grace forgives us, makes that grace and forgiveness all the more wonderful. <a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a> quotes this about the latter day of judgment. We cannot be saved by our works. So because that day will on one hand be a reward of works and yet we shall be saved::. our acceptance must therefore be by pure grace.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But the king shall rejoice in God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is tacit reflection of David's faith in Samuel's prophetic word that David was indeed to be king. Perhaps David speaks of himself in the third person because he is not yet the king.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Everyone who swears by Him will praise Him, for the mouth of those who speak lies shall be stopped- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The whole reason for the Law of Moses was “so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (<a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a>). Paul is quoting here from <a href='B:230 63:11'>Psa 63:11</a>: “the mouth of those who speak lies shall be stopped”. He’s reasoning that because we’re all sinners, we’re all liars- for untruth is the essence of sin. We are not being true to ourselves, to God, to His word, to our brethren</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> we profess covenant relationship with God, to be His people, and yet we fail to keep the terms of that covenant. And the Law of Moses convicted all God’s people of this, and in this way led them to the need for Christ. Yet <a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a> prophesied that the crucified Jesus would result in men shutting their mouths. The righteousness and perfection displayed there in one Man, the very human Lord Jesus, has the same effect upon us as the Law of Moses- we shut our mouths, convicted of sin.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Speak lies" reflects again David's deep sense of injustice (see on <a href='B:230 35:7'>Psa 35:7</a>). He uses the word for "false witness", as if they were breaking one of the ten commandments; and he uses it often, heaping condemnation upon any who dare lie / bear false witness about him (<a href='B:230 38:19'>Psa 38:19</a>; <a href='B:230 52:3'>Psa 52:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:11'>Psa 63:11</a>; <a href='B:230 101:7'>Psa 101:7</a>; <a href='B:230 119:29'>Psa 119:29</a>; <a href='B:230 119:69'>Psa 119:69</a>; <a href='B:230 119:86'>Psa 119:86</a>; <a href='B:230 119:118'>Psa 119:118</a>; <a href='B:230 120:2'>Psa 120:2</a>; <a href='B:230 144:8'>Psa 144:8</a>; <a href='B:230 144:11'>Psa 144:11</a>). And yet David lied and deceived in order to get Uriah killed so that he could take his wife for himself. Surely reflection upon that sin made him realize that his zeal to condemn dishonesty was at best misplaced; to lament it is one thing, but David was to be taught that he had himself done the very thing he so condemned.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The righteous shall be glad in Yahweh, and shall take refuge in Him. All the upright in heart shall praise Him!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David is seeing himself and the righteous as Job, and he here continues that connection, seeing that Job is described likewise as "upright in heart" (<a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>; <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>). David sees this as characteristic of all God's people (s:w. <a href='B:230 11:2'>Psa 11:2</a>; <a href='B:230 19:8'>Psa 19:8</a>; <a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a>; <a href='B:230 36:10'>Psa 36:10</a>; <a href='B:230 64:10'>Psa 64:10</a>; <a href='B:230 94:15'>Psa 94:15</a>; <a href='B:230 97:11'>Psa 97:11</a>). He sees the wicked as those who are not upright (<a href='B:230 14:3'>Psa 14:3</a>; <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a>). But these words which David writes about the wicked are then reinterpreted as applying to all men, God's people included (<a href='B:520 3:12'>Rom 3:12</a>). Like Job, David had to be taught that actually he was failing to see the seriousness of sin; righteousness and acceptability with God is imputed to men by grace through faith, because actually there are none who are upright in heart, apart from God's representative son.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The pastures are covered with flocks, the valleys also are clothed with grain. They shout for joy! They also sing- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "Sing hymns", as if David's Psalms of the Kingdom would be sung by the valleys, as it were; in that they would echo the sounds of those singing those hymns.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed be God, who has not turned away my prayer, nor His grace from me- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David had a theoretical understanding that the salvation given him was by grace alone; and yet as noted on :18,19, he still maintained an inappropriate self-righteousness. And our professed understanding of grace can be similar.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God will bless us. All the ends of the earth shall fear Him- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This again points up the issue; God would bless Israel ("us") by grace because of their repentance and obedience to the covenant; and therefore all the ends of the eretz promised to Abraham, including the nations like Assyria and Babylon at the very ends or boundaries of that territory, would also "fear Him" in the sense of accepting covenant relationship with Him. The Psalm concludes with another reference to the high priestly blessing (see on :1).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You are awesome, God, in Your sanctuaries. The God of Israel gives strength and power to His people. Praise be to God!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The reference to "the God of Israel" is because as noted in the previous verses, the appeal is for the Gentiles to become part of God's Kingdom. "Your sanctuaries" may refer to the one great sanctuary, Zion. It was David's vision that Zion with the temple upon it should become the parade example of God's manifestation, and would serve as a magnet for the Gentiles to come. This vision is repeated in the prophets.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The children also of His servants shall inherit it. Those who love His name shall dwell therein- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>No longer would the inheritance of Zion be predicated upon belonging to the tribe of Judah, in whose inheritance Jerusalem fell. Zion, the beloved temple mount, would be inherited by all who truly love God's Name, who love His characteristics. All who love the Lord's appearing will be saved by Him (<a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a>). Simple love of God and His ways and character is the lead characteristic of those who shall be saved eternally.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But I am poor and needy. Come to me quickly, God. You are my help and my deliverer. Yahweh, don’t delay- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :1. This final verse changes <a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a> "Yet the Lord thinks upon me" to an appeal for urgent help. It could be that David recalls his earlier successful prayer for urgent help in a situation and repeats it, although without the praise for an answer, which has not yet been received. Perhaps this is the sense of the Psalm title "a reminder", to act as God had done previously. Psalms 40 is an appeal for help with the consequences of the sin with Bathsheba, and maybe Psalms 70 was related to facing another such consequence.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My tongue will also talk about Your righteousness all day long, for they are disappointed and they are confounded who want to harm me-&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David speaks of how he "meditates day and night" on God's law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a>), and also of how he meditates upon "God" at night (<a href='B:230 63:6'>Psa 63:6</a>) and in the day (<a href='B:230 71:24'>Psa 71:24</a>). But as noted on :20-23, David here speaks of how he shall do this in God's Kingdom. He was living the Kingdom life now; as the Lord Jesus would put it in John's Gospel, he "had eternal life":&nbsp;</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This ends the prayers by David, the son of Jesse- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I suggested on <a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a> that this means that for sure Psalms 1-72 were all written by David, although most of them were edited and reapplied, under inspiration, to later situations; and I gave reasons for thinking that the majority of the later Psalms, although not all, were likewise originally his inspired work.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But it is good for me to come close to God. I have made the Lord Yahweh my refuge, that I may tell of all Your works- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I noted on :27 that David is protesting his sole allegiance to Yahweh and not to idols in addition. In the course of this prayer, David persuades himself that it is he who is close to God, and those he has envied for their wealth are far from Him (:27). You are not alone, I am not alone; “For I am with you”. God is with us for us in His Son. Of course, we must draw near to Him (<a href='B:230 73:28'>Psa 73:28</a>); and yet He is already near, not far from every one of us (<a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a>). David often speaks of drawing close to God, and yet he invites God to draw near to him (<a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>). Yet David also recognizes that God “is” near already (<a href='B:230 75:1'>Psa 75:1</a>). I take all this to mean that like us, David recognized that God “is” near, and yet wished God to make His presence real to him. Truly can we pray David’s prayers. So often, prayer is described as coming near to God (<a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a> etc:)- and yet God “is” near already. Prayer, therefore, is a way of making us realize the presence of the God who is always present.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX concludes: "In the gates of the daughter of Sion". This was so relevant to the exiles, with their desire to return to the Jerusalem temple.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Don’t forget the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of those who rise up against You ascends continually-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The language used here (and in <a href='B:230 65:7'>Psa 65:7</a>) is that used of the gathering of the Assyrian and Babylonian armies against Zion (<a href='B:290 13:4'>Isa 13:4</a>; <a href='B:290 17:12-13'>Isa 17:12-13</a>; <a href='B:290 25:5'>Isa 25:5</a>; <a href='B:300 25:31'>Jer 25:31</a>). But God's word was to calm that, in order to reestablish His Kingdom.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will cut off all the horns of the wicked, but the horns of the righteous shall be lifted up- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The power of Assyria and Israel's enemies generally has been likened to a wild beast, with the particular "horn" of :4,5 referring to Rabshakeh speaking loudly and proudly about the failure of Israel's God to save from the Assyrians. So the beast with many horns of later prophecy is envisaged here- as the Assyrian or Babylonian invader, with the various members of their coalitions as the horns. The idea of the horn of the righteous being exalted is used about what David envisaged happening for God's people in this life (s:w. <a href='B:230 148:14'>Psa 148:14</a>), although the final fulfilment was to be at the last day, when the horn of the wicked is cut off (<a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a>). But there are potential foretastes of the last day in this life. Jeremiah appears to struggle with the Psalms which taught that the horn of the righteous would be lifted up, lamenting that instead the horn of their enemies had been lifted up (s:w. <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). The truth was that the horn of God's people would only be lifted up if they were identified with the lifting up of the horn which was Messiah (<a href='B:230 89:17'>Psa 89:17</a>; <a href='B:230 89:24'>Psa 89:24</a>). And because this didn't happen, their horn was not exalted.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Despite his undoubted physique stamina, David was a broken man, even quite early in his life, prone to fits of introspection; dramatic mood-swings (cp. <a href='B:90 24:14'>1Sa 24:14</a> with 25:6,22,34;), sometimes appearing a real 'softie' toward all men, ever reflecting God's grace; but hard as nails at others (consider <a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a> and the whole of Psalms 101); easily getting carried away: be it with excessive emotional enthusiasm for bringing the ark back, in his harsh response to Hanun humbling his servants, his over-hasty and emotional decision to let Amnon go to Absalom's feast when it was obvious what might well transpire, his anger " flaring up" because of incompetency (<a href='B:100 11:20'>2Sa 11:20</a> NIV) etc.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He will cut off the spirit of princes, He is feared by the kings of the land-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>AV "He is terrible to the kings::.". A primary reference to the likes of Sennacherib and Rabshakeh with the princes of Assyria who were with the Assyrian army when it was destroyed.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The flock of Israel were led by the hand of an Angel, but that Angel articulated its activity through men. And it is the same today. God's hand is manifest through our hand. As explained earlier on this Psalm, God's wonders of old were in that He had worked with an impenitent and apostate people, towards their salvation. This is the wonder of His history with men, and it is this history which is developed in Psalms 78. I suggest that again we have a pairing of the Psalms, here of Psalms 77, 78. The salvation history outlined in Psalms 78 is a development of this theme of Psalms 77. Hence <a href='B:230 77:20'>Psa 77:20</a> ends with Israel being "led" as a flock, and Psalms 78 continues this theme (<a href='B:230 78:14'>Psa 78:14</a>; <a href='B:230 78:53'>Psa 78:53</a> s:w:).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>So he was their shepherd according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skillfulness of his hands-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is an intentional ambiguity as to whether the "shepherd" in view is God or David (:70). The idea seems to be that David was Israel's shepherd on God's behalf. As noted on :71, we sense that this is praising David for his skilful leading of Israel, as if he was to be accepted as the unquestioned ruler, and all competition was to be discounted. David's heart was not consistently of integrity, as we see in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah; it was only by grace that David was counted like this (s:w. <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>). God did indeed give his son Solomon "understanding" (s:w. "skillfulness", <a href='B:110 4:29'>1Ki 4:29</a>).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>So we, Your people and sheep of Your pasture, will give You thanks forever. We will praise You forever, to all generations- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Israel's praise should surely have been of God's grace towards them in restoration, rather than for repaying their neighbours seven times more than what they had done to Israel (:12). This is not to say that the record of these Psalms is not inspired; but there is a difference between inspiration and revelation&nbsp; [a "Thus says the Lord"] . All the Bible is inspired, but not all is direct revelation of truth; thus the mocking of Yahweh by Rabshakeh is recorded and that record is inspired, but that is hardly revelation of Divine truth.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Turn us again, Yahweh God of Armies. Cause Your face to shine, and we will be saved- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This repeats :3,7, and as noted there, this is a request for God to give repentance [and not just forgiveness] to the exiles. This runs as a refrain throughout this Psalm and is clearly the lead request of the psalmist. Whilst God does indeed give repentance as well as forgiveness, we would perhaps wish that the exilic psalmists showed more awareness of the depth of their sins and appealed more for repentance.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But He would have also fed them with the finest of the wheat, I would have satisfied you with honey out of the rock- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If Israel were obedient, they would have been fed with honey as well as Manna- whilst <a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> says they did have honey on their journey. What they could have had and what they were given in prospect is spoken of as if it was reality due to the nature of how God's potentials work. Or it could be that God in His grace did give them some honey, even though they didn’t fulfill the requirement- for God is so gracious. The promised blessings of honey were conditional upon Israel's obedience (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> cp. <a href='B:230 81:16'>Psa 81:16</a>), although granted in prospect (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a>).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Arise, God, judge the earth, for You shall inherit all of the nations. A song- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This Psalm is of rebuke and is a moral appeal. Yet it was to be sung as a song. In days of mass illiteracy, this would have been appropriate way to get the message out. In the context of God's people judging unjustly, God Himself is invited to arise and judge. And at that time, people from "all nations" would become His people, because of the injustice of Israel.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>that they may know that You alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is no conscious survival of death taught in the Bible. The judgments of :17 are therefore intended not to be carried out; for after 'perishing' (:18) they can hardly know or recognize Yahweh. The description of judgment in :17 is therefore so that they might repent and accept Yahweh as king, and willingly submit to His Kingdom throughout the entire eretz promised to Abraham.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician. On an instrument of Gath. A Psalm by the sons of Korah- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"By" can as well be "for", so the Psalm may still be Davidic, but is dedicated to the memory of the sons of Korah. Korah had died in rebellion against God, but his children had been preserved (<a href='B:40 26:9-11'>Num 26:9-11</a>); they therefore became representative of all who had overcome bad background to worship Yahweh independently, regardless of the sins of their fathers. They were therefore inspirational to the righteous remnant amongst the exiles in Babylon. Or these "sons of Korah" may refer to a group of musicians who were to perform the Psalm, the Levitical singers mentioned in <a href='B:130 26:1-2'>1Ch 26:1-2</a>; <a href='B:140 20:19'>2Ch 20:19</a>. Or if we insist on reading "by", it could have been a Davidic Psalm edited and as it were released by a group called "the sons of Korah" during the captivity in Babylon.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh of Armies, blessed is the man who trusts in You- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:230 2:12'>Psa 2:12</a> has David saying the same. Despite all the longing for being physically present in the temple, David concludes that the greatest blessing is not that, but rather having a heart which trusts in Yahweh and His armies of Angels for restoration in the end. And this was the lesson for the exiles, and for us too.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Righteousness goes before Him, and prepares the way for His steps- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is the language of later Isaiah about the way back to Zion being prepared. But those wonderful prophecies of restoration were precluded by the impenitence of the exiles, and their preference (for the most part) to remain in exile</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Turn to me, and have mercy on me! Give Your strength to Your servant, save the son of Your handmaid-&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>These words are true for David, and yet they have a strange appropriacy to the Lord Jesus in His time of desperate need. The Lord’s mind was upon His mother in His time of dying. The spirit of Christ speaks of&nbsp;"thy [male] servant::. the son of thine handmaid" [female servant]- He saw the solidarity between Himself and His mother when on the cross, He felt they were both the servants of God. <a href='B:230 86:8-17'>Psa 86:8-17</a> has many references back to Mary's song. He had that song on His mind on the cross. Her example and her song which she had taught him as a little boy sustained His faith in the final crisIsa. This surely shows the value and power of the upbringing of children when young. In the Lord’s case, His mother’s influence sustained Him through the cruelest cross and deepest crisis any human being has ever had to go through. It was as if He was humming the song in His mind, which His dear mum had sung around the house as she cared for Him, cooked, sewed</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Those who sing as well as those who dance say, All my springs are in You- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "The dwelling of all within thee is as the dwelling of those that rejoice". Those dwelling within Zion are the Gentiles who have accepted Zion and the God of Israel who is manifest there (:4); and far from being nationalistic and elitist,&nbsp; the Jews were to rejoice in this conversion of the Gentiles.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You have put lover and friend far from me, and my friends into darkness- Perhaps a reference to a falling out with Bathsheba soon after their sin, and the way that on account of what he had done, David's own relatives ["friends"] turned against him, as did Ahithophel, who was Bathsheba's grandfather. David loved his parents, especially caring for their safe keeping in his wilderness years; only to be forsaken by them (the Hebrew means just that), and to be rejected by his brothers and sisters ("friend"; <a href='B:230 27:10'>Psa 27:10</a>; <a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>; <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>; <a href='B:230 88:18'>Psa 88:18</a>). And yet despite these breakdowns of relationship being totally David's fault, he appears to blame God for it, and doesn't conclude the Psalm with any ascription of praise or contrition.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed be Yahweh forever. Amen, and Amen- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As noted on :1, despite all the doubts and struggles of the psalmist, the Psalm concludes with praise to God. This is a great challenge to us, no matter what struggles we have with God. We are to all the same love and praise Him. This is where the problem of evil, the difficulty of understanding the apparently harder side of God, is designed to elicit humility and tenacity of love for Him.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let the grace of the Lord our God be upon us-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "And let the brightness of the Lord our God be upon us". This would be a request for the Angel of glory to return amongst the Israelites. God had clearly stated "I will not go up in the midst of you" (<a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a>); but Moses asked all the same for God [in the form of the Angel of glory?] to go among them" (<a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a>). And he is doing the same here. For the exiles, it would have meant a desire for the shekinah glory, perhaps literally associated with the same Angel, to return to Zion. Ezekiel had in vision seen it departing.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Establish the work of our hands for us; yes, establish the work of our hands- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In <a href='B:50 16:15'>Deu 16:15</a> is used of Israel in the land, obedient and blessed. Moses wishes that the condemned generation could enter the land and experience the blessings promised.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Moses spoke of how all Israel should pray that God would establish the work of their hands (<a href='B:230 90:17'>Psa 90:17</a>)- but this was in fact his special request for the blessing of Levi, the priestly tribe (<a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a>). <a href='B:230 135:19-20'>Psa 135:19-20</a> parallels all Israel with the priestly family: “Bless the Lord, O house of Israel: bless the Lord, O house of Aaron: bless the Lord, O house of Levi: ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord::. praise ye the Lord”. All Israel were to aspire to the spirit of priesthood. Indeed, the Psalms often parallel the house of Aaron (i:e. the priesthood) with the whole nation (<a href='B:230 115:9-10'>Psa 115:9-10</a>; <a href='B:230 115:12'>Psa 115:12</a>; <a href='B:230 118:2-3'>Psa 118:2-3</a>):&nbsp; As it was God’s intention that Israel were to be a nation of priests to the rest of the world, so the new Israel likewise are to all discharge the priestly functions of teaching their brethren (<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a> cp. <a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>; <a href='B:730 1:6'>Rev 1:6</a>; <a href='B:730 5:9-10'>Rev 5:9-10</a>). Under the new covenant, we should all teach and admonish one another (<a href='B:580 3:16'>Col 3:16</a>). Indeed, God told Israel [unrecorded in the historical records]: “Ye are gods [elohim] and all of you are sons of the Most High” (<a href='B:230 82:6'>Psa 82:6</a> RV). Further, <a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> makes the paradigm breaking statement that even the Gentiles could come before Yahweh of Israel in holy, priestly array- they too could aspire to the spirit of priesthood (<a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> RVmg:).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will satisfy him with long life, and show him My salvation- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This came ultimately true for the Lord Jesus when he was given eternal life. The fulfilment in Joshua was pale in comparison to this, and he lived slightly shorter than Moses. There are a number of occasions where the Lord’s need for salvation by God is emphasized. <a href='B:230 91:11-12'>Psa 91:11-12</a> is quoted about Jesus in <a href='B:470 4:6'>Mat 4:6</a>. Now <a href='B:230 91:16'>Psa 91:16</a> goes on to prophesy how God would give the Lord Jesus salvation: “With long life (i:e. eternal life) will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation." <a href='B:230 69:21'>Psa 69:21</a> refers to Christ’s crucifixion (<a href='B:470 27:34'>Mat 27:34</a>); the whole Psalm describes Christ’s thoughts on the cross: “Save me, O God::. Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it:::Let your salvation, O God, set me up on high” (<a href='B:230 69:1'>Psa 69:1</a>; <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>; <a href='B:230 69:29'>Psa 69:29</a>). This need of the Lord for salvation is impossible for the Trinitarian paradigm to cope with.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>to show that Yahweh is upright. He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is a quotation from <a href='B:50 32:4'>Deu 32:4</a>. The context there is of Moses at the end of his life, like David in "old age" (:14), lamenting the general apostasy of Israel; and yet rejoicing that Yahweh for him is his "rock" and His ways are ever more evidently "right" in his life. This may seem a strange way to conclude a liturgy which was to be read or sung weekly at the Sabbath meetings of God's people (:1). But in that context it is appropriate; for the majority of God's visible community have nearly always been astray, and it is appropriate that a genuine worshipper would at times feel this, and would want to take comfort from the words of Moses which David here appropriates.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Your words stand firm. Holiness adorns Your house, Yahweh, forever- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The words in view may be God's statements that David indeed was to be king. But David realized that if God's throne was David's throne, then David's house was to as Yahweh's house, adorned with holiness. Solomon interpreted this in physical terms, adorning the temple with symbols of holiness (the cherubim) and gold; but the real adornment was of personal holiness, which Solomon failed in ultimately because of his obsession with the external and material.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He has brought on them their own iniquity, and will cut them off in their own wickedness. Yahweh, our God, will cut them off- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The intentional juxtaposition of past and future tenses reflects how David believed that what he now wished in the present was utterly certain of fulfilment. God likewise sees things in this way, and faith is all about seeing things from His perspective.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore I swore in My wrath, They will not enter into My rest- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This appears a strange end for the Psalm which began with inviting God's people to come into His presence. But the abrupt and negative closure is left as a stark reminder of the realities we face. Those who do not believe shall not enter into God's rest. Hebrews 3 interprets this as meaning that those who trust in their own works cannot enter God's "rest"; whereas those who trust in His work through the Lord Jesus and not in their own works can in one sense enter the rest right now, although there remains an entry into rest at the Lord's return.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God has emotion. The generation that were promised the rest, permanence and stability of the promised land were not given it, because in their hearts they wandered. And this was reflected in their wandering in the wilderness. This implies that God changed His mind about letting Israel enter the land; for He had promised that generation "rest" in that He promised them the land (<a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). Or as <a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a> (A:V. mg:) says: "Ye shall bear your iniquity, even forty years, and ye shall know the altering of My purpose". These were the words of the Angel to Moses. The apparent change of plans could be seen as more appropriate if it concerned the Angel which led them; and yet the Angel all the same was manifesting God. This oath they would not "enter into My rest" was solely because they did not believe (<a href='B:650 3:18'>Heb 3:18</a>). The immorality, idolatry etc. were relatively incidental to the essential issue- that they did not believe He would give them rest in the promised land. And therefore He did not give it to them. The context of all this is Paul's appeal for confident hope in our future salvation (<a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a>). It is unbelief and a constant demand for 'proof' which was their problem which cost them salvation.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>before Yahweh; for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, the peoples with His truth- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is quoted in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a> concerning the final day of judgment at the Lord's return. David feels God's judgment is ongoing now (<a href='B:230 9:4'>Psa 9:4</a>), but that is preparation for the future day of judgment. Appreciating this means that we live our lives before the judgment presence of God. See on :8. Note that the prospect of judgment to come elicits joy for David. He was not scared at the thought of meeting God in judgment.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Be glad in Yahweh, you righteous people! Give thanks to His holy Name- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The rejoicing of the daughter of Zion, the exiles, required that they be righteous through repentance; in order that the envisaged restoration could happen in their days. They would then be counted righteous, and be able to praise God for that grace.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let them sing before Yahweh, for He comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity- This is quoted in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a> concerning the final day of judgment at the Lord's return. David feels God's judgment is ongoing now (<a href='B:230 9:4'>Psa 9:4</a>), but that is preparation for the future day of judgment. Appreciating this means that we live our lives before the judgment presence of God. The reason for joy was that judgment day is coming- judgment was a joyful prospect, not a dread uncertainty, because God's judgments are ahead of time revealed in His word.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Exalt Yahweh our God. Worship at His holy hill, for Yahweh, our God, is holy!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is an appeal of the repentant Jews to the Gentiles, to come to Zion and worship our God. The Kingdom prophecies of the nations flowing to Zion could have had some fulfilment at the restoration. But the Jews weren't that devoted to Zion, and initially continued worshipping Gentile idols; and became proud and xenophobic rather than acceptant and welcoming to Gentiles.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Morning by morning, I will destroy all the wicked of the land; to cut off all the workers of iniquity from Yahweh’s city- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This sounds like David promising a total purge of "the wicked" from the and royal city. There is no evidence David actually did this; he surely realized it was too hard in practice to judge who was "wicked", perceiving that bad men do what good men dream of, and all human motivation is so mixed.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The children of Your servants will continue, their seed will be established before You- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The context of the Psalm is that the historical David, along with Hezekiah and the exiles, feared they were not going to continue. But the Psalm ends with a bold statement that the true seed (even it was to be redefined) would be "established", the restoration and eternal reestablishment of Zion was to come, finally. Even if it didn't happen when and how it was originally intended, and as hoped for by that generation. And this is an abiding comfort and challenge for us all.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Praise Yahweh, all you works of His, in all places of His dominion. Praise Yahweh, my soul!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The psalmist wishes to see a unity between the heavenly armies, eager and willing to achieve the restoration (see on :20,21), and all God's works, and the individual repeating this prayer. </p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let sinners be consumed out of the earth. Let the wicked be no more. Bless Yahweh, my soul. Praise Yah!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>A quotation from <a href='B:290 16:4'>Isa 16:4</a> about the consuming out of the land of the sinful nations dominating Judah. The psalmist is praying for this time to be hastened, and until it comes, he will still praise Yahweh as if it has already happened (see on :34). For this is the nature of faith, to adopt God's timeless perspective, and look to the end as if it is even now.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>that they might keep His statutes, and observe His laws. Praise Yah!<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This forms an inclusio with the opening invitation to the Gentile peoples to praise Yah in :1,2. This was what Israel were intended to do, and the Gentiles were being asked to join repentant Israel in a new multiethnic people of God.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, from everlasting even to everlasting! Let all the people say, Amen. Praise Yah!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This psalm has been a prayer of confession of sin. The people are asked to say "Amen!" to it all, recognizing their sinfulness as a people and as individuals; and yet with the confession, to also praise God for His abiding grace to His people. As noted on :47, this is a slightly adapted quotation from David's Psalm of praise when the ark was brought to Zion. The people were asked to understand that their return to Zion was to be like the return of the ark after a period in Gentile captivity. The dwelling place of God was no longer to be over a box of acacia wood, but over God's own repentant people.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Whoever is wise will pay attention to these things; they will reflect upon the graces of Yahweh- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This may be an intensive plural, for the great singular grace of Yahweh. Although the psalmist speaks in the past tense for what he believes will be the fulfilment of the restoration prophecies, he accepts that the fulfilment will be conditional upon perceiving God's grace and accepting it in faith. For the most part, the exiles didn't do this, and so the invitation was given to a new people of God.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2>Through God we will do valiantly, for it is He who will tread down our enemies- </h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David sees in the victory against Edom a guarantee that God will give them victory against future adversaries. This could be argued to be over interpretation; because as noted on <a href='B:230 60:9'>Psa 60:9</a>, Divine blessing was related to whether Israel kept the covenant or not. And David seems to fail to emphasize this conditional element in God's help, just as he downplayed it in his enthusiasm to see Solomon as the fulfilment of the promised Messianic seed. And this led to Solomon's arrogance and spiritual collapse.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p><a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a> The proverbs of Solomon-</p><p>Proverbs is a collection of various statements from Solomon, some of which in later chapters were apparently edited in the time of Hezekiah; with the words of Agur added to the anthology. The "Lemuel" of Proverbs 31 may also be Solomon. I will argue that in fact all the chapters are either by or edited by Solomon. They are the result of Solomon being given "wisdom" when he became king. That wisdom was to enable him to govern Yahweh's people Israel, hence they are so practical. However, I will observe time and again that although they are all inspired and true, this Divine truth is used by Solomon to justify himself in his various political tensions with other pretenders to the throne, from the house of Saul and from the supporters of his various half brothers. He comes to elevate his "wisdom", true as it is of itself, far above God's word, and ends up playing God. And this leads to glaring contradictions between the truths and wisdom he writes down, and his personal life. This is especially true in relation to women. And so we have in this book a unique message to those within Christian communities who pride themselves upon "truth" which they have received. The truth of that truth, as it were, is unquestionable. But the lesson is that academic truth and knowledge must be personally applied; and when it isn't, the mere possession of that truth leads to hypocrisy and eventual downfall, of which Solomon is the parade example. The possession of those truths will not of itself save us; and yet Solomon appeared to think that it would, and therefore failed to apply these things to himself personally.</p><p>Are the Proverbs really like precious stones that must be emptied out of the bag and rearranged by theme? In which case, why didn't God do so at the start when inspiring the book? My comments are as follows:</p><p>- Some of the Proverbs are basic truisms and maxims which have equivalents in any culture. Solomon wrote the book at the start of his reign when God gave him his wisdom.</p><p>But Solomon loved Egyptian and Gentile women right from the start of his reign. There are strong similarities both in content and genre between Proverbs and e:g. the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. It could be that Solomon took various things from the literature of his father in law in Egypt::. or of course it could be that Solomon's book</p><p>of Proverbs was designed to preach to the Egyptians and surrounding nations in their own terms and in a familiar genre. Much is written by Solomon about about the establishment of the throne on the basis of truth and justice; and this is commonly found in Egyptian literature about the Pharaohs.</p><p>- The text hangs together far better in the original Hebrew. Most people were illiterate, and so the book was designed to be memorized:&nbsp; There are many patterns in the book which</p><p>depend upon the alliteration and rhyming of words and ideas to enable memorization. This was typical of wisdom literature of the time. There are similar initial syllables of words and verses, or beginning with the same letter. There's much word play, similar sounds repeat between verses if read out loud. Thus the root sdq [righteousness] occurs in various words which connect various proverbs which appear unrelated to each other in English translation. These sound patterns form a chain which enables memorization. Thus <a href='B:240 16:27-29'>Pro 16:27-29</a> all begin with the word ish, 'a man'. Catchwords link adjacent verses.</p><p>- Watch out for clusters of verses which do have the same theme; the verses which don't appear to be in a cluster are likely connected by alliteration etc. for easy memorization.</p><p>- My own hunch is that although the Proverbs are inspired by God, they were also presented by Solomon with a strong hint of self-justification. He wrote them when he had just inherited the throne from his father David, whom he idolized and was obsessed with. He sought to justify his father against all the various factions who were in Israel who were not sympathetic to David and therefore to Solomon. Almost every other verse in the book appears to have some such sideways swipe at the likes of Saul, Nabal, Absalom or Joab- whilst presenting Solomon as the wise son with whom alone David was pleased. Solomon should've sought his self-worth and value in God's opinion of him; and he should've trusted the promises to David of God establishing his throne and line, rather than seeking to as it were fulfill them for himself by using God's Truth and Wisdom to establish himself at others' expense.</p><p>The son of David, king of Israel-</p><p>Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (<a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>; <a href='B:250 1:12'>Ecc 1:12</a>; <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a>) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of <a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a>: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth:::give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i:e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e:g. <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a> states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom).</p>


text:
<p><a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a> The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>I will explain on :16 why this book is appropriate to Solomon as author, at the time when his wives had turned away his heart from Yahweh. The "preacher", the convener or gatherer of an assembly for teaching, could as well mean the compiler. He says he produced and set in order many Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>), and this confirms that Solomon is the "son of David" in view. His emphasis upon how he was "king in Jerusalem" suggests he considers his kingship there as a fulfilment of the promises to David, which he considered to be fulfilled in himself. The description of his indulgence in every building project, woman and avenue of human experience in Ecclesiastes 2 can only really apply to Solomon:&nbsp; </p><p>But a case has been made for Hezekiah as the author. The huge amount of Solomonic language, and connections with Proverbs, Song of Solomon and his own recorded life history, would mean that I would still take Solomon as the author. But as explained on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, Hezekiah had a great interest in Solomon, and edited his Proverbs in Proverbs 25-29. I have pointed out throughout that section the relevance of so much of that material to Hezekiah. The way Hezekiah followed Solomon's path to apostasy in later life would explain his interest in the book. And so just as he reused Proverbs 25-29, as stated in <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, so he may have used Ecclesiastes, as he found it so relevant to his own situation at the end of his life. He too had turned away from God in his heart but still retained Divine wisdom- in terms of theoretical truth. Likewise the observation has been made that there is much language used in Ecclesiastes which is influenced by Persian, as if the book was rewritten in captivity. That too may be the case, although I would add that whatever the processes, it was all under the overall inspiration of God. Judah in captivity were as Solomon at the end of his life and Hezekiah in his last 15 years, and the book would therefore have been used as an appeal for their repentance from the vanity of the good life in Persia.</p>


text:
<h4>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</h4><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>First Printing: 2018ISBN 978-0-244-07924-6 </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><strong>PREFACE</strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Duncan Heaster</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>dh@heaster:org </p>


text:
<p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018ISBN 978-0-244-07924-6 </p><h4>PREFACE</h4><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Duncan Heaster</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>dh@heaster:org</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p>Proverbs: New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-10091-9</p><p>#define version=3</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>Carelinks </p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net </p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal. </p><p>First Printing: 2018 </p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-70352-3 </p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text. </p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him. </p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org </p>


